check_positions

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main behavior—fetching prices and computing P&L—but leaves ambiguity about whether the tool directly writes to Notion or only prepares data for a downstream write. This is a notable gap, though the core operation is understandable.

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, front-loaded sentences. The primary action is stated first, followed by the workflow context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The tool is simple with a single well-documented parameter, and the description explains the operation and its workflow purpose. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate the return structure or whether it writes to Notion directly, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 all parameter meanings. The description adds only the relationship between entry prices and P&L calculation, which is marginal value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch current prices for a list of market IDs and calculate P&L against entry prices.' This clearly distinguishes it from price-only siblings like get_prices by adding the P&L calculation and the Notion Trade Journal workflow 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 explicitly says 'Use this to update the Notion Trade Journal,' giving clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended workflow is understood.

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