Check whether you hold a stock and retrieve position details like quantity and entry price for any symbol. Returns null when no position exists, enabling quick account verification.
Get position for a specific symbol.
Args: symbol: Stock symbol (e.g., 'AAPL')
Returns position details or null if no position exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that null is returned when no position exists, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites beyond a symbol.
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 concise and well-structured, leading with purpose, then an Args block, then return behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation and return behavior. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit differentiation from get_positions, though the symbol parameter strongly implies the intended use case.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by defining 'symbol' as a stock symbol and giving the concrete example 'AAPL'. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema property name.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('position'), and scope ('for a specific symbol'), making the tool's function clear. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_positions by emphasizing 'specific symbol', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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?
Usage context is implied: to fetch a single position, pass a symbol. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_positions, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.