Lists open trades on the active MetaTrader 5 account for read-only monitoring of current market exposure.
List open positions on the active account. Read-only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "positions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing "Read-only" sentence adds nothing beyond structured data. The one genuinely additive fact is that results are scoped to the *active* account rather than all accounts. Nothing is said about empty results, result size, or whether the data is live versus cached.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero padding. The second sentence ("Read-only.") is redundant with readOnlyHint, so it slightly fails the 'every sentence earns its place' bar, but the overall size is appropriate for a no-argument tool.
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?
With zero parameters and rich annotations, the structural burden is low, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a position record contains (symbol, volume, direction, profit) or what an empty response looks like. An agent knows how to call it but not what it will get back.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully implies that no account or symbol filter is accepted because scope is fixed to the active account, which prevents an agent from hunting for filtering arguments that do not exist.
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?
"List open positions on the active account" gives a specific verb (List) plus resource (open positions) and scope (active account). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `orders` tool or explains how open positions differ from orders, leaving that inference to the agent.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for querying current exposure. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer `orders` instead, and no stated prerequisites such as an active connection or account selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.