get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'Read-only,' which is important safety information, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, live-vs-delayed data, or exact-match behavior beyond the word 'exact.' This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence covers purpose, optionality, and safety with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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: one optional parameterholed and no output schema. The description covers what the tool does, the filtering option, and the read-only nature. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return-format details, but these are minor omissions for this level of complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare string schema. It adds meaningful semantics: the ticker is optionalaisle and when provided is an exact Trading 212 ticker. This is useful, though it omits formatting/case/suffix conventions.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('open positions'), and clarifies the optional exact-ticker filter. 'Read-only' further disambiguates intent. It is clear enough to stand apart from siblings like get_portfolio and get_account_summary.

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 on when to prefer this tool versus siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The only usage hint is that the ticker is optional and exact, which is a filtering rule rather than a when-to-use directive.

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