set_margin_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral constraint (cannot change with positions/orders), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other potential traits like required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a critical note. Both sentences earn their place—the first defines the action, the second provides essential usage guidance. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 mutation with constraints), no annotations, but a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and a key constraint, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (symbol as trading pair, margin_type as enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Switch margin type') and resource ('for a symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like set_leverage or set_position_mode. It precisely identifies the two margin types (ISOLATED and CROSSED), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'Cannot change margin type while a position or open order exists.' This provides clear exclusion criteria, helping the agent avoid incorrect invocations. It also implies usage context by mentioning positions and orders, which relate to sibling tools like get_positions and get_open_orders.

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