set_leverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions returns but doesn't disclose if this is a high-risk mutation, requires specific account permissions, has rate limits, or affects open positions. 'Set leverage' implies a write operation, but safety and side effects are undocumented.

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 with zero waste—it states the action, target, and return values directly. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (a financial mutation with no annotations) and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimal but functional. It states the purpose and returns, but lacks critical context like risk implications or usage guidelines, making it adequate but incomplete for safe agent use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'symbol' and 'leverage' are used, which the schema already covers with descriptions and constraints like '1–125'.

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 action ('Set leverage') and target resource ('for a symbol'), and mentions the return values. It specifies the verb and resource but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'set_margin_type' or 'set_position_mode' that also configure trading parameters.

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 versus alternatives like 'set_margin_type' or 'set_position_mode', nor any prerequisites or context for leverage changes. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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