calculate_position_size

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds tier-gating and the backing API/authority endpoints, which is real added context, but it says nothing about how size/leverage are derived, what happens when stopPrice equals entryPrice, or what the result contains.

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?

It is short and the purpose statement is a single well-formed sentence. But the bracketed metadata block occupies roughly half the text with internal routing details (API path, authority path) that are only marginally useful to an agent, and it precedes rather than supports the actual description.

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?

This is a computational tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage — the highest-burden configuration. The description supplies neither parameter meaning nor any hint of the returned shape (size, leverage, liquidation distance), leaving an agent unable to call it confidently beyond the three required fields.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: equity, entryPrice, stopPrice, riskPercent, targetPrice and riskMultiplier are never mentioned. The phrase 'risk constraints' vaguely gestures at riskPercent/riskMultiplier but gives no meaning, defaults, units, or interaction rules (e.g. riskMultiplier bounds 0.1–1).

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 sentence 'Translate risk constraints into size and leverage for a perp setup' gives a specific verb (translate/calculate) and resource (position size + leverage) for a defined domain (perp futures). It is clear what the tool computes, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like analyze_futures_strategy or prepare_perp_order, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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 bracketed prefix discloses a real precondition — the tool is gated behind pioneer_plus_or_x402 — which is genuine usage context. However, there is no statement of when to call this versus analyze_futures_strategy or prepare_perp_order, and no guidance on the workflow position (e.g. call before prepare_perp_order).

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