list_positions

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. It clearly indicates a read-only operation that returns currently open positions, which is helpful, but it does not reveal response shape, whether the list is a live snapshot, or any authorization/rate-limit context. For a simple list tool, the basic behavior is adequately stated, but meaningful gaps remain.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the scope with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 list operation, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows it will get current positions and their status. The lack of an output schema leaves the exact fields unspecified, but for this low-complexity tool the text provides enough context to select and 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 tool has no parameters and the schema shows none, so there is little for the description to add. With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or defaults.

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 ('Returns') plus a well-defined resource ('currently open cTrader positions') and scope ('currently open'), making the tool's intent immediately clear. This resource is distinct from sibling tools like list_orders or list_deals_by_position_id, so an agent can tell what it 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_position_unrealized_pnl, list_deals_by_position_id, or list_orders. The phrase 'currently open' implicitly limits it to current positions, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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