Get Positions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: auto-pagination through all pages and the exact fields returned, including option-specific fields. No destructive behavior is implied, and no contradiction exists.

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 that deliver essential information without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists return fields, covering both general and option-specific details.

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, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the scope, pagination behavior, asset types, and return field structure. The lack of an output schema is compensated by a detailed field list.

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?

The schema fully documents the single optional accountId parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It references 'an account' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's coverage.

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: 'Get all open positions for an account.' It lists asset types (stocks, options, futures) and distinguishes from sibling get_position_by_conid by emphasizing 'all open positions' and auto-pagination.

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 context that the tool lists all open positions for an account and auto-paginates, which implies use when a complete portfolio snapshot is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_position_by_conid for single-position queries, so it lacks clear exclusions.

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