get_leverage_brackets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens on errors. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent reliability.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get leverage brackets for a symbol') and adds necessary detail ('max leverage per notional tier with maintenance margin rates') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what data it provides. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) prevents a perfect score, as these are important for reliable agent operation in a trading context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema as 'Trading pair, e.g. 'BTCUSDT''. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Get leverage brackets') and resource ('for a symbol'), with precise details about what information is retrieved ('max leverage per notional tier with maintenance margin rates'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_symbol_info or get_account_summary by focusing specifically on leverage bracket data rather than general symbol information or account details.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a symbol' and mentioning 'max leverage per notional tier with maintenance margin rates,' suggesting this tool is used when leverage bracket information is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_symbol_info (which might include some leverage data) or set_leverage (which modifies leverage), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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