okx_get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. The '[L:READ]' tag indicates a read-only operation, which is useful, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., what positions are returned, account scope, rate limits). This is minimal transparency.

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 very short (one line), which is concise, but the content is not clearly structured for an AI agent. The tags are terse but may not be universally understood. It front-loads the read hint but lacks a plain language summary.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description should at least mention what the tool returns (e.g., current positions for the account). It only provides a prerequisite, leaving the return values and context unexplained.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with an enum and description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 cryptic tags like '[L:READ] CAT:[账户]' instead of a clear statement. The name implies retrieving positions, but the description does not explicitly state the verb and resource. It is vague and relies on inference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The hint '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' provides a prerequisite but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Sibling tools like okx_get_positions_history are not differentiated.

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