Retrieve the full list of trading positions currently tracked by OctoBot, enabling a read-only view of open positions for portfolio monitoring and analysis.
List every trading position OctoBot currently knows about.
Maps to GET /api/positions. Read-only, not confirm-gated. Returns
OctoBot's own JSON body unchanged (NFR-8).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, not confirm-gated' and that it returns OctoBot's own JSON body unchanged (NFR-8), providing important safety and response-shape context beyond a mere endpoint listing.
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 three short sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by endpoint mapping and behavioral guarantees, each sentence adding distinct value.
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, read-only list endpoint, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, the HTTP mapping, safety profile, and response behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every trading position OctoBot currently knows about'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like close_position by explicitly labeling itself as read-only.
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 provides clear context: it is a read-only, non-confirm-gated way to fetch all positions, which implies choosing it over mutation or confirmation-gated tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple list endpoint the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.