get_positioning_context

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the data is a proxy, weekly, delayed, and not a realtime order-flow signal, which protects against misinterpretation. It does not describe output shape, units, or failure modes, but the most important behavioral caveats are addressed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the critical caveat about data frequency and non-realtime nature follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with a fully described schema, the description is mostly self-contained: it covers data source, frequency, delay, scope, and the key non-realtime limitation. The lack of an output schema means a brief note on the returned positioning proxy shape would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for correct tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides: symbol support and weeks meaning are already in the property descriptions. This is the correct baseline.

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 states a concrete action and resource: getting the latest or recent public CFTC COT positioning proxy. It scopes this to supported FX or gold symbols and adds a differentiating caveat that this is weekly, delayed futures data, not a realtime order-flow signal. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from realtime flow-oriented sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need COT positioning context for supported FX or gold symbols. It explicitly warns that the data is weekly, delayed futures data, not a realtime order-flow signal. It stops short of naming a specific alternative for realtime order flow, so it lacks full when-not/alternative guidance.

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