Robinhood Get Positions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the output shape (a dict mapping symbols to details including price, quantity, average buy price, equity, percent change) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get.' It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but the return-format transparency is valuable.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action and then listing the returned fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, scope, and return shape. It does not address potential ambiguity with sibling tools or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but those are minor gaps given the simplistic interface.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meanings. The description correctly focuses on the output instead, and the schema coverage baseline applies. No param semantics are skipped.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get all current stock positions with details.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like robinhood_get_position (singular) and robinhood_get_options_positions by specifying 'all' and 'stock positions.' The return format is also briefly stated, so purpose is 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives such as robinhood_get_position or robinhood_get_portfolio. The phrase 'Get all current stock positions' loosely implies usage when all positions are needed, but there are no when-not-to-use conditions or sibling comparisons.

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