q402_yield_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses READ-ONLY behavior, authentication via API key, that no private key is required, and that no funds move. It also explicitly states what the tool does NOT report (principal/accrued earnings), preventing hallucinated earnings claims.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('READ-ONLY - show...') and then efficiently covers output, authentication, chain scope, limitations, and parameter semantics. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the need to warn against unsupported earnings claims.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields and the aggregate USD value. It covers optional params, default wallet resolution, supported chains, and a critical functional caveat. The tool is fully specified for correct invocation.

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% (both params described), but the description adds significant value: walletId is optional and the server resolves the default wallet from the API key; the Q402_AGENT_WALLET_ADDRESS env var is mentioned; chain filter is optional and chains are listed. This goes well beyond the schema.

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's function: 'show the Agent Wallet's current Q402 Yield lending positions' and enumerates the returned data (protocol, chain, asset, market address, position value, APY, aggregate USD). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from transaction siblings like q402_yield_deposit and q402_yield_withdraw.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this whenever the user asks...' with concrete example queries. It also explains when to pass walletId vs. omit it, and notes the optional chain filter. This clearly directs the agent on when to select this tool.

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