get_safe_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about requiring SAFE_API_KEY and querying the Safe Transaction Service, which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 concise, with 5 sentences that front-load purpose, then detail parameters, authentication, and limitations. 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 tool's complexity (multisig accounts, multiple chains, various returned fields), the description covers purpose, parameters, auth, limitations, and companion tools. Although no output schema is provided, the description lists what is returned, making it complete for agent usage.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully explains each: signerAddress for discovering Safes owned by a wallet, safeAddress for direct lookup, and chains as an array defaulting to ethereum. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool fetches Safe multisig accounts for an EVM owner address and/or by Safe address. It specifies the returned data fields (threshold, owners, version, balance, transactions, risk notes) and distinguishes from siblings like get_token_balance and get_portfolio_summary by noting that ERC-20 balances are not included.

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 explains when to use signerAddress vs safeAddress vs both, that chains default to ethereum, and how to specify other chains. It also notes the requirement for SAFE_API_KEY and explicitly states what the tool does not do (enumerate ERC-20 balances), providing alternatives (get_token_balance, get_portfolio_summary).

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