Farm Position Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what status information is checked (live funding APR, price move, exit conditions), which is consistent with the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool reports.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Check the health of the current farm position') and immediately lists what is checked, making it easy to scan and comprehend.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers the tool's purpose, the data it reports, and its intended usage. No missing context is apparent for a simple read-only health check tool.

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 the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to explain; the description focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs.

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 clearly states the tool 'Checks the health of the current farm position' with specific components (live funding APR, price move, exit conditions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_funding_position and close_funding_position, which are about taking or closing positions.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this periodically to decide whether to close,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a read-only monitoring tool this is sufficient context.

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