get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It explains null semantics for mirrored fields, companion `_error` fields, the always-null `leverage`, and the funding_paid sign convention, which are all critical non-obvious behaviors.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then systematically explains potentially confusing return-field semantics, and finishes with the auth requirement. 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a tool of this complexity. It preemptively answers likely questions about nulls, unknown values, mirroring failures, and funding sign, making the tool safe to invoke correctly.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by mentioning that API credentials are required, which is appropriate for the 0-parameter baseline.

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 and resource: 'Get the authenticated account's open positions.' The word 'open' distinguishes it from related tools like get_closed_positions and get_demo_positions, and it clearly scopes the operation to the authenticated account.

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 frames when to use it: for the authenticated account's open positions, and it notes the API credential requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as demo or closed positions, but the context is clear enough.

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