position_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content and that the position is live-marked, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential errors, data freshness guarantees, or authentication requirements.

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 sentence with the verb and resource up front. It is concise and structured effectively, with no redundant words.

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 with two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not cover return values. However, the absence of parameter explanations and usage guidance makes the description only minimally complete for an agent selecting the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It only implies that 'symbol' and 'account' identify the position but does not clarify formats or constraints, adding little value over the bare schema field names.

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 gets a single live-marked position and specifies the return data (market value and unrealized P&L). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'positions' (likely plural) and 'position_close' (mutation).

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 retrieving a single position by symbol and account, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'positions'.

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