get_position_unrealized_pnl

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' communicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, assumptions about open positions, or response handling. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff or repetition. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is close to sufficient: the operation and input are obvious. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the response shape, currency/units of the P&L, or whether the position must be currently open. These are modest but real gaps.

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 0% for the sole positionId parameter, though the property name is fairly self-explanatory. The description adds domain context by identifying it as a 'specific cTrader position,' but it does not specify the ID format, source, or how to obtain it. This partially compensates for the schema gap without fully doing so.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and a precise resource: 'unrealized P&L for a specific cTrader position.' This distinguishes it from siblings such as list_positions and get_market_data, since no other sibling targets a single position's P&L.

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 a prerequisite by saying 'for a specific... position,' but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_positions or list_deals_by_position_id. No exclusions or conditions are stated, so usage guidance is left mostly to inference.

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