Robinhood Get Options Positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the operation is read-only. It also states the return shape is a list and enumerates the fields, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect from the call.

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 two concise sentences with no filler: one states the action and read-only nature, the second lists the returned attributes. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description covers what the agent needs: the scope, safety profile, and returned fields. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but nothing about correctly invoking this simple tool is missing.

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 is no parameter documentation burden. The description reinforces this by saying 'all current options positions,' signaling no filtering inputs exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all current options positions' with a clear read-only qualifier. The word 'options' distinguishes it from the sibling robinhood_get_positions and robinhood_get_position, so an agent can tell which tool handles options holdings.

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 implies use when the agent needs all current options positions, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as robinhood_get_positions for equity positions. The usage context is clear but left to inference.

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