get_positions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a read-only list operation and enumerates exactly what the response will contain: symbol, quantity, market value, cost basis, unrealized P/L, current price, and average entry price. It does not cover error cases or authentication requirements, but for a simple read-only portfolio snapshot this is not a significant gap.

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 a short, front-loaded summary followed by a clean bullet list of return fields. Every sentence and item 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 zero parameters, a read-only purpose, and an available output schema, the description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation. It states the portfolio scope and enumerates the returned data points, so an agent knows what to expect without needing additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed and there is no risk of misuse from undocumented arguments.

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') and resource ('all open positions in the portfolio'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_position by emphasizing 'all open positions', so an agent can tell it is a list operation rather than a single-position lookup.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: when an agent needs the full set of open positions in the portfolio. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'all open positions' phrasing provides enough contextual direction to select this tool over similar siblings.

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