paradex_vault_positions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by emphasizing monitoring and tracking rather than modification. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the types of data available (unrealized P&L, liquidation prices, entry prices). No contradictions.

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 concise yet comprehensive, using bullet points and example use cases to convey information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The single parameter is well-documented, annotations are clear, and the description covers all essential usage scenarios for a monitoring tool. No gaps.

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 contains one parameter (vault_address) with a clear description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns position data for that vault, including specific metrics like P&L and leverage, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 monitors active trading positions to track performance and manage risk. It lists specific use cases (e.g., get open positions, monitor unrealized P&L, check liquidation prices) that distinguish it from sibling tools like vault_balance and vault_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 description provides explicit use cases and example scenarios (e.g., checking status of open trades, monitoring P&L, assessing liquidation risk). While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the listed use cases effectively guide the agent. Sibling differentiation is implied by the focus on positions.

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