get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action as a fetch, implying a read-only operation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or data format) are disclosed, but for a simple retrieval tool, the description is adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds essential information.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the return format. However, for a straightforward fetch tool with a single parameter, the description covers the core functionality and prerequisites adequately.

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 schema describes the walletAddress parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter is optional if the ALPHA_MNEMONIC environment variable is set, providing context beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch' and identifies the exact resource 'YES/NO token positions for a wallet across all markets'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_open_orders or get_live_markets, which focus on different resources.

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 states a prerequisite: 'You must provide walletAddress or set ALPHA_MNEMONIC.' This guides the user on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the uniqueness of the resource makes it implicit.

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