get_lending_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the exact data returned (collateral, debt, health factor, LTV, liquidation threshold) and mentions the chains (Ethereum and Arbitrum). However, it does not disclose any rate limits, error behaviors, or the effect of the optional 'chains' parameter.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and lists important details. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though a bulleted list could improve scanability. It earns its place 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 tool's complexity (multi-chain, multi-field positions) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks details on how the 'chains' parameter interacts with the return (does querying multiple chains aggregate or separate?), default behavior, and the exact structure of the response (e.g., per-asset breakdown format). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'wallet' implicitly and 'chains' by naming example chains, but it does not explain the wallet format (0x address), that chains is an array, or that polygon/base/optimism are also valid despite the description focusing on Ethereum and Arbitrum. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's pattern and enum.

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 specific action (fetch all lending/borrowing positions), the protocol (Aave V3), and the target (wallet). It lists the returned fields (collateral, debt, health factor, LTV, liquidation threshold) and chains (Ethereum and Arbitrum), making it easy to distinguish from sibling position-fetching tools like get_compound_positions or get_kamino_positions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and sibling context imply it is for Aave V3 positions, there is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with other position tools. Usage is implied but not explicitly directed.

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