t2000_positions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates a read-only operation with 'View current lending positions', which is consistent with no destructive side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, required permissions, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary information: what data it shows, and a sibling alternative. It could optionally describe the output format, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. According to guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics in this case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'View' and the resource 'current lending positions on NAVI', listing specific data points (deposits, borrows, APYs). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool t2000_overview, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance by recommending t2000_overview for a full account snapshot, indicating when to use this tool versus an alternative. However, it does not cover other potential alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.