get_marginfi_positions

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains that the tool probes up to 4 PDAs, returns one entry per existing account, and details the output fields (balances in human amounts and USD, aggregate totals, health factor with interpretation, and warnings for paused banks). This fully discloses behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY label and purpose. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys the probe limits, output details, health factor interpretation, and sibling references 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 absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return values: balances per bank, aggregate totals, health factor with meaning, and warnings. It also covers edge cases (empty array). With only one parameter, the description is complete.

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 sole parameter 'wallet' is described in the input schema with a pattern, but the main description adds crucial semantics: it explains that the tool probes the first 4 MarginfiAccount PDAs under this wallet (accountIndex 0..3) and returns one entry per existing account. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 it is a READ-ONLY tool that enumerates a Solana wallet's MarginFi lending positions. It specifies the action (enumerate), the resource (MarginFi lending positions), and the scope (first 4 MarginfiAccount PDAs under accountIndex 0..3). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_compound_positions and get_morpho_positions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage context: it is parallel to EVM's get_compound_positions / get_morpho_positions, guiding the agent when to use this tool over alternatives. It also notes that an empty array is returned when the wallet has no MarginfiAccount, setting clear expectations.

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