execute_isolated_perp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the auth mechanism ('with a private key'), which is useful, but it omits critical trade behavior: irreversibility, funds at risk, how reduceOnly/stopLoss/takeProfit interact, and that accountRef is an alternative to passing a secret. Worse, saying it requires a private key conflicts with the schema, where privateKey is optional and accountRef can supply credentials instead.

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 short and front-loads the action, which is good. But for a 15-parameter destructive trading tool it is under-specified rather than truly concise, and the second sentence duplicates information already present in the schema.

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 complex, destructive, open-world trading tool with 15 parameters and no output schema. The description omits risk warnings, credential handling (privateKey vs accountRef from gdex_connect), order-type semantics (isMarket vs price), and any indication of what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent materially under-informed for a high-stakes call.

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 47% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate. Instead, its only parameter-related statement ('Requires explicit leverage') merely repeats the schema's own leverage description and says nothing about coin, isLong, price, positionSize, reduceOnly, stop-loss/take-profit, builder fee fields, or the privateKey-versus-accountRef choice.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Execute an isolated-margin perpetual trade'), and the 'isolated-margin' qualifier distinguishes it from execute_cross_perp. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to similarly named siblings such as open_perp_position, place_perp_order, or gdex_execute_trade, leaving ambiguity about which perp entry point to choose.

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?

'Directly with a private key' and 'Requires explicit leverage' imply some preconditions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus execute_cross_perp, open_perp_position, or place_perp_order. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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