get_risk_limit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns risk limit tiers, failing to mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 very concise, front-loading the purpose and then listing parameters and returns in a structured format. No unnecessary words or repetition, 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 the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient in explaining return values ('Risk limit tiers' is vague). It does not describe the structure or fields of the response. For a simple tool, the completeness is minimal.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by providing an example for symbol (BTCUSDT) and describing category as product type with default 'linear'. However, it does not enumerate accepted values formally, and the schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates but could be more precise.

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 retrieves risk limit info for a symbol, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_price_limit or confirm_risk_limit, which have different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as confirm_risk_limit for setting limits or get_price_limit for price limits. The description implies usage context but lacks explicit instructions or exclusions.

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