adjust_isolated_margin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the prerequisite condition (isolated margin mode with open position) which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects on liquidation risk, or confirmation of success/failure. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise with only two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage constraints. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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 that this is a financial trading tool with mutation capability (margin adjustment) and no annotations, the description does well by stating the prerequisite condition. However, with an output schema existing, it doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of disclosure about authentication, rate limits, or risk implications, which would be valuable for a margin adjustment operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain margin calculation, amount units, or position_side implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Add or remove margin') on a specific resource ('isolated position'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on orders, account info, or other trading operations. It precisely identifies the tool's unique function in margin management.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Only valid when the symbol is in ISOLATED margin mode with an open position.' This provides clear prerequisites and context for usage, distinguishing it from tools like set_margin_type (which changes margin mode) or get_positions (which retrieves position info).

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