get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the returned fields and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention pagination, ownership scope, default filtering behavior when kind is omitted, or potential side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The list of returned attributes is useful and directly helps an agent decide whether this tool satisfies its need.

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 straightforward read-only positions tool, the description plus fully documented schema is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about whose positions are returned and the default when kind is omitted, especially since no output schema exists.

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%, with both parameters already having descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional semantic detail about currency or instrument kind, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get all open positions') and enumerates the returned attributes (size, direction, P&L, average price, greeks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_open_orders and get_portfolio_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?

The phrase 'Get all open positions' creates a clear use case: an agent should use this when it needs position-level detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is still evident.

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