spraay_defi_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the cost per call ($0.008 USDC) and a note to pass fields as typed arguments, which is marginally helpful but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, cost, and usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the key phrase 'DeFi positions'. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers essential aspects (purpose, cost, read-only, argument passing). It does not mention that address is required, but the schema already specifies that. Reasonably complete for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description only says 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states 'DeFi positions', which indicates the resource but lacks specificity about what type of positions (e.g., liquidity, staked). It does not differentiate clearly from sibling tools like spraay_portfolio_tokens or spraay_balances. The verb is implied but not explicit.

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 versus alternatives such as portfolio tokens or balances. The description mentions cost and read-only nature but provides no context about ideal use cases or exclusions.

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