analyze_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the fee model (actual entry fees from trade history plus estimated exit fees at ~$0.9/contract taker), the realism of exit simulation using bid/ask rather than mark, and the inclusion of recommendations. This goes well beyond a generic 'analyze position' claim and sets accurate behavioral expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately labels it preferred and lists its valuable outputs, while the second sentence supplies routing guidance. There is no filler; every clause adds either behavioral detail or selection context.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is notably complete for selection and invocation: it names required concepts, fee assumptions, output categories, and the preferred-use scenario. It does not spell out output formatting or empty-position edge cases, but those are not necessary for an agent to choose and call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (currency enum and optional instrument_name). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 and resource: it is the preferred tool for position analysis, and then enumerates concrete outputs such as fee-aware NET P&L, realistic exit simulation at bid/ask, DTE, greeks, moneyness, risk flags, and actionable recommendations. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_positions + get_ticker by naming that alternative.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Always use this instead of get_positions + get_ticker when analyzing positions.' It also opens with 'PREFERRED tool for position analysis,' giving the agent a clear selection rule and naming the alternatives it should displace.

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