execute_isolated_perp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two useful facts (private key signing, leverage mandatory), but omits critical context for a live-funds mutation: irreversibility, that isMarket defaults to true, reduceOnly semantics, and risk/error behavior.

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, leading with the action and scope. Given the tool's complexity it is arguably too terse, but structurally it is clean and efficient.

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?

For a 14-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not cover market/limit behavior, risk params, builder fee fields, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent without enough to call it safely.

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 only 43% across 14 parameters, and the description only restates 'requires explicit leverage' and mentions the private key. It does not clarify undocumented parameters such as stopLossTrigger, takeProfitTrigger, builderFeeRate/Address, reduceOnly, or isMarket, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute an isolated-margin perpetual trade') and the scoping word 'isolated' implicitly distinguishes it from execute_cross_perp. However it does not differentiate it from other position-opening siblings like open_perp_position or place_perp_order, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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 guidance and no named alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (execute_cross_perp, open_perp_position, place_perp_order). The only hint is that 'isolated-margin' is the operative condition, which the agent must infer.

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