change-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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the change requires existing positions to be closed, whether it affects open orders, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is reversible. The only behavioral hint is a general property of isolated margin, not the tool's operational behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and platform, followed by a brief explanatory note. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical operational context such as whether positions must be flat, potential side effects on existing orders, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The added sentence about isolated margin is helpful but insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score of 3 when 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 states a specific verb (change) and resource (margin type), names the exact platform (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures) and the values (Cross and Isolated), which matches the enum in the schema. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like change-leverage or modify-position-margin by focusing squarely on margin type.

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 the action's context but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify-position-margin or change-leverage. The added note about isolated margin limiting risk provides some strategic rationale but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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