get_lending_positions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, etc. Description adds details about returned values (collateral, debt per-asset, health factor, LTV, liquidation threshold) and chains (Ethereum and Arbitrum), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with action and result fields. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Description covers main purpose and key outputs, but lacks details on output structure or pagination; slight inconsistency with chains enum (description vs schema). Adequate for a read-only position fetch tool.

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 has 2 parameters (wallet required, chains optional) with 0% schema description coverage. Description mentions wallet implicitly but does not explain chains parameter fully; it says 'across Ethereum and Arbitrum' but schema allows polygon, base, optimism. Insufficient compensation for missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states it fetches Aave V3 lending/borrowing positions for a wallet, listing returned fields (collateral, debt, health factor, LTV, liquidation threshold) and chains (Ethereum and Arbitrum). Differentiates from sibling position tools for other protocols like Compound, Morpho, etc.

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?

Implies use for Aave V3 positions on supported chains, but does not explicitly exclude non-Aave protocols or mention alternatives like get_compound_positions. Contextually clear given sibling tool names.

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