Open futures position

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: paper trading only, virtual funds, idempotency (replay protection), server-flag gating (403 possible), and 'Not financial advice.' Since no annotations exist, the description fully covers safety and mutation details.

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?

Five sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence is valuable, though minor structuring could improve readability. No 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 complexity (5 required params, no output schema), the description covers behavioral, usage, and param constraints well. It lacks explanation of the return value, but other aspects are thoroughly addressed.

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 coverage is only 20% (only idempotencyKey has a description). The description adds meaning for leverage (1-20), marginMusd (>=10), and idempotencyKey (unique per intent, replay). It does not detail coinId or side beyond enum, but provides sufficient context.

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 opens or adds to a mock futures position, specifies the action (open/add), and the resource (futures position). It distinguishes from siblings like close_futures_position and futures_quote by focusing on opening positions.

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 clear context: requires trade:futures scope, idempotencyKey uniqueness, leverage/margin bounds, and emphasizes 'Quote first and CONFIRM with the user.' Does not explicitly compare with alternatives like open_pm_position, but the guidance is strong.

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