data_get_closed_positions

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

While no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation ('Fetch closed positions') and the tool name suggests data retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or mention rate limits, authorization, or pagination behavior. It is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: it states the core purpose, provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation, suggests next steps, and specifies input format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: core functionality, usage context, input format, and relation to sibling tools. No missing information is critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with the 'user' parameter described as 'Wallet query arguments.' The description adds value by specifying the expected format as a wallet address typically in '0x...' format, which is not present in the schema. This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 closed positions for one wallet, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_positions' tool by specifying that it should be used for historical closed exposure. This provides specific verb+resource+scope differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (user wants completed or no-longer-open positions, historical closed exposure specifically requested) and suggests common next steps ('get_activity' or 'get_trades'), offering clear context and alternatives.

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