get_user_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: 'Falls back gracefully if indexers are behind.' However, it does not explain what 'falls back' means in terms of data freshness or return format, leaving some opacity.

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 primary action. Every word adds value, including the fallback note. No wasted space.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete as a retrieval operation. It states what is returned and the data source. However, it could clarify the structure of positions (e.g., fields like size, entry price), but this is not critical for a basic read.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which already specifies 'Ethereum address of the user (lowercase)'. No extra syntax or format details are provided.

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 fetches a user's current positions, specifying the data source (Slimmed P&L subgraph). This directly distinguishes it from user PnL or market-specific position tools, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions fallback behavior but does not contrast with sibling tools like get_account_pnl or get_market_positions. There are no usage criteria or exclusions.

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