get_position_riskMargin health for the subaccount: equity, freeCollateral, total maintenance/initial margin, maintenanceMarginBufferUsd (the EXACT liquidation guard — liquidatable when < 0), marginUsageRatio (1.0 = at liquidation), account leverage, and per-position estimated liquidation price + distance to it. Use before adding risk or to decide whether to protect/close a position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the meaning of maintenanceMarginBufferUsd, marginUsageRatio, account leverage, and per-position details. This goes well beyond the annotation.
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 a single dense sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information. It could be slightly improved by breaking into shorter sentences, but it is front-loaded with key metrics and uses no filler.
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 no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the exact metrics returned and their meaning, including the liquidation guard interpretation, leaving no major gaps for a read-only tool.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly describes what the tool returns without referencing parameters.
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 returns margin health for the subaccount, listing specific metrics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_positions, which might also return position-level data.
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 before adding risk or to decide whether to protect/close a position,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the read-only nature is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap among the read-heavy account tools: get_balance/get_funding_status/fund virtually duplicate each other, and get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk/get_open_orders/get_positions all converge on equity and open-position data. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose, but several tools have fuzzy boundaries.
The overwhelming majority follow the expected verb_noun convention: get_*, place_*, cancel_*, close_*. Minor deviations such as batch_cancel, get_candles_multi, top_up_gas, and whoami make the pattern not perfectly uniform, but the inconsistency is small.
At 33 tools, the surface is beyond what most agents need and includes several redundant query helpers rather than genuinely distinct operations. A broad exchange can justify a large surface, but get_balance/get_funding_status, get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk, and get_candles/get_candles_multi make the set feel top-heavy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: market discovery, market data, order placement/cancellation, position management, risk, funding transfers, PnL, and account status. Obvious gaps are limited to historical order lookup by order ID, a way to cancel across all markets in one call, and a few optional account-history conveniences.