get_outcome_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: filtering spot balances to outcome tokens only. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as response format, error handling, or whether authentication is required. Given the lack of annotations, this is an average disclosure.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clarifying note. Every word earns its place with no 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 simplicity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavior. The main gap is the network parameter's relevance, which is not explained. Still, for a simple getter, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: 'user' is described, but 'network' is left with only an enum and default. The tool description does not mention 'network', failing to compensate for the underexplained parameter. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema for the user parameter either.

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's function: retrieving a user's outcome token balances, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on market data (prices, books, trades). The parenthetical 'positions in prediction markets' adds specific resource context, 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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for user-specific positions and explicitly notes the filtering behavior, which implies its scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks formal exclusions or alternatives.

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