get_positions

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

There are no annotations, so the description must stand alone. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies the position components returned, but the description does not mention authentication/session requirements or behavior when no positions exist. The output schema supplies return structure, but on its own the description leaves some behavioral context implicit.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the output type and then adds the two key qualifiers ('open and net', 'intraday + carryforward').

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states exactly what positions are returned and the time scope. It is not a 5 because it leaves the operational context (e.g., login requirement, session/day definition) to the reader rather than stating it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully documented as empty, so there is no parameter meaning the description must add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'Get the day's open and net positions'—and the parenthetical '(intraday + carryforward)' adds scope that helps distinguish this from sibling tools like get_holdings. It is immediately clear what data the tool returns.

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 is implied by the phrase 'day's open and net positions': an agent should choose this when it needs current intraday and carryforward positions. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, so the description does not actively route away from get_holdings or get_all_holdings.

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