get_unprotected_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Salt-okunur, hiçbir emri değiştirmez' (read-only, does not modify any order) and explains the empty-result semantics, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by read-only and empty-result notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 description covers all key contextual aspects: scope (all real accounts), filter criteria (dust-above, no open SELL order including SL/TP/OCO), read-only nature, and empty-result interpretation. For a read-only query with no output schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 lists two optional generic parameters (request_id, idempotency_key) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage, even though their names suggest common infrastructure purposes.

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 'finds dust-above base asset balances without an open SELL order (including SL/TP/OCO) across all real accounts', using a specific verb and resource. It also answers a concrete question ('which position is left unprotected'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_open_orders or get_total_exposure.

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 usage context by specifying it answers a single-call question about unprotected positions. It also notes the tool is read-only, which helps differentiate it from mutating siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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