get_market_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return includes holders and P&L, but it doesn't disclose sorting defaults, pagination behavior via the 'first' parameter, or any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by a brief return summary. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a high-level statement about returning top holders and their P&L, but it lacks details on how the results are ordered, pagination limits, and how positions are defined. For a simple read-only query with a well-described schema, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including detailed semantics for tokenId and enums for orderBy. The description adds minimal extra meaning by saying 'top positions,' which hints at ordering, but this is already captured by the orderBy parameter with its default valueBought. Thus, the description's added value is marginal.

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 it gets the top positions for a specific market token from the Beefy P&L subgraph and shows who holds the largest positions with their P&L. This specifies the verb and resource, and the mention of 'top positions' distinguishes it from per-user position tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need the largest positions and their P&L for a particular market token. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be preferable, such as get_user_positions or get_top_traders.

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