Trader Position Lifecycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: lifecycles are 'reconstructed from on-chain fills,' a '90-day rolling window' applies, and 'spot (@-prefixed) excluded by default.' No contradiction with annotations 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then enriches with return-row details, the comparison to closed-positions, key constraints, and a use case. Every sentence adds value with no filler or 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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately enumerates returned fields: entry/exit VWAP, peak size, hold duration, realized PnL, fees, fill count, and liquidation status. It also covers key behavioral constraints like the rolling window and default spot exclusion. Combined with the fully documented input schema, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the window and spot exclusion but does not add much parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema already documents. This is acceptable because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a wallet's position lifecycle history.' It then details what each lifecycle contains and explicitly contrasts with closed-positions: 'Richer than closed-positions: each row is a full position lifecycle.' This makes the tool's purpose distinct from similar sibling tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use for deep position-level due diligence and timing analysis.' It also differentiates from closed-positions by explaining that this returns full lifecycles. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the comparison and use-case guidance are strong enough to guide selection.

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