edgex_get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the empty-array return behavior when no positions exist, but does not explicitly confirm read-only status or any other behavioral traits. It adds some value beyond the raw tool name.

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 directly states what the tool does and a key edge case. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the return type (open positions) and the special empty-array behavior. It does not detail the position object structure, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the lack of parameters.

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 zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the surface. The description appropriately omits parameter details. Baseline 4 is assigned since no parameter explanation is required.

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 retrieves open positions and specifies the key detail of unrealized PnL. It is distinct from sibling tools like edgex_get_orders and edgex_get_balances, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 usage for checking current open positions and their unrealized PnL, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as edgex_get_orders or edgex_get_balances. No clear guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives is provided.

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