Open futures position

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and openness (openWorldHint=true). Description adds context: mock position, paper trading, virtual funds, scope requirement, and SL/TP corridor rules. No contradiction.

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?

Description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and covers all essential aspects without redundant words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given output schema exists, description need not detail return values. It covers scope, constraints, optional parameters with rules, workflow, and disclaimers (paper trading, not financial advice). No gaps evident.

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 describes all 8 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds critical constraints not in schema, such as the side-aware corridor for stopLoss/takeProfit and reinforces key requirements (idempotencyKey unique, min/max for leverage and margin).

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 'Open (or add to) a mock futures position,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like close_futures_position and set_futures_sl_tp by mentioning quoting and confirmation workflow.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (trade:futures scope), constraints (leverage 1-20, marginMusd >= 10), required parameter behavior (idempotencyKey unique per intent), and workflow guidance ('Quote first and CONFIRM with the user'). Also notes server-gating and paper trading nature.

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