get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. The description is too brief to offer meaningful transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate the main action from the filter option). Word count is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential points: what is returned and the filter option. However, it omits details like what fields are in the output, any default behavior (all positions vs. only open?), and limits. It is minimally acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by clarifying that the symbol parameter is optional for filtering, but it does not explain acceptable formats (e.g., ticker vs. full name), case sensitivity, or what happens if an invalid symbol is provided.

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 tool returns 'Open positions' and mentions the optional filter by symbol, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_orders or get_history. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', relying on the tool name for action context.

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 provides minimal guidance: only that the symbol parameter is optional. It fails to indicate when this tool should be used over alternatives (e.g., get_account_info for overall account status) or any prerequisites. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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