get_position

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

Annotations already convey safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that the output matches get_positions, which is useful format context. It does not mention error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added context is sufficient.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the operation and scope. It includes a cross-reference to get_positions without any fluff, making every word valuable.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations. The description covers the operation, parameter, and output consistency with get_positions. Minor omissions like error cases are not critical given the schema and annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that 'symbol' is the identifier for the position to fetch and implies compatibility with get_positions. However, this largely restates the property name and adds only modest semantic value.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a single position'), and the scope ('by symbol'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_positions by emphasizing 'single' and referencing get_positions for context, making its unique purpose obvious.

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 the use case: fetch one position for a given symbol. The reference to get_positions signals that it is the singular counterpart, offering clear context even though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative guidance.

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