execute_cross_perp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth model (private key, self-custody) and feature scope (TP/SL and builder fees), but omits notable behaviors such as the leverage auto-update side effect and what the call returns or how failures behave.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the feature scope follows. There is spare room that could have been used for usage guidance without bloat, but nothing here is wasteful.

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?

This is a 14-parameter financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the action and auth model but leaves out routing context against its many siblings and behavioral caveats, so it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly all 14 parameters in detail. The description only summarizes 'Supports TP/SL and builder fees,' adding little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Execute a cross-margin perpetual trade') and adds the execution model ('directly with a private key, no managed custody'). The 'cross-margin' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling execute_isolated_perp, but that differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or named alternatives appear. The 'cross-margin' framing plus 'no managed custody' only imply when this tool is appropriate versus the isolated or managed siblings, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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