get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read operation returning specific data fields, which is transparent. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists all key data points. No extraneous words. Every part 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but the essential information is present.

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% (one parameter, address, fully described in schema). The description adds value by listing returned fields, but does not add new semantics for the parameter itself. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves open perpetual positions for a Hyperliquid wallet and enumerates the returned fields (size, entry, mark, uPnL, ROE, leverage, liquidation price, account value, margin used, withdrawable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fills, get_funding, etc.

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 implies it is for current open positions, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., for historical data, use get_fills). No usage prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, but the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation.

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