set_position_mode

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 effectively describes a critical constraint (cannot change with positions/orders open), which is essential for understanding when the operation will fail. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like confirmation messages, error formats, or whether the change is immediate/reversible, leaving some 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (changing account mode with constraints), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and key usage constraint but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which could be beneficial for full transparency.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'hedge_mode' fully documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since there's only one parameter and the schema is complete, this is adequate. A baseline of 3 is adjusted to 4 due to the minimal parameter count and high schema coverage.

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 between') and resource ('One-way Mode and Hedge Mode for the account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_position_mode (which reads) and set_leverage/set_margin_type (which adjust different settings). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides usage guidance with the note 'Cannot change while any positions or open orders exist,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. This is crucial for avoiding errors, and no alternative tools are mentioned since this is the only tool for this specific function among siblings.

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