Trader Closed Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it works 'for any wallet,' returns 'every' closed position, and specifies the included fields. No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the core function, then add use-case context and example queries without fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, while parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema and safety profile by annotations. The 'for any wallet' scope and example questions give an agent enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 five parameters including defaults and patterns. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('closed position history for any wallet'), clearly distinguishing it from open positions, recent trades, or aggregated stats. It also lists the exact data fields (entry/exit prices, hold duration, PnL, leverage) and gives example natural-language queries an agent would field.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use this to analyze a trader's position lifecycle and timing patterns.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for historical closed position queries.

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