list_deals_by_position_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, response contents, error behavior, or whether historical and closed positions are included.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function and scope.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without detail on return format, pagination, or operational constraints.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that positionId is a 'specific cTrader position ID', which is minimal beyond the schema property name. It does not explain the expected format, source, or how it relates to IDs from sibling tools.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('deal history'), and clearly scopes it to a 'specific cTrader position ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_positions and list_orders, which deal with different entities.

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 the tool is for fetching deal history for a known position ID, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_positions, get_order_details, or list_orders. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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