HTX Plan Spot Margin Action

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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the live quota check for borrow plans and the explicit caveat that a ready plan is still a review artifact, not an execution request. This prevents the agent from misusing the tool's output.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding the quota-check and review-artifact caveats, and there is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 rich nested schema, the output schema, and the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential workflow caveat: the result is a plan for review, not an executed order. It could be more explicit about when to invoke this tool relative to validation/preview siblings, but nothing critical for safe invocation is missing.

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 top-level schema coverage signal is 0%, but the nested SpotMarginAction schema provides detailed descriptions for action, amount, currency, instrument, margin_mode, and loan_order_id. The tool description only adds borrow-specific semantics and references targeted repayment, so it does not fully compensate for the top-level parameter gap, though it is not misleading.

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 ('Validate and normalize') and a precise resource ('one spot-margin transfer, borrow, or targeted repayment'). It also explicitly frames the output as a review artifact, not an execution request, which clearly distinguishes it from execution or trade-oriented siblings.

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 gives actionable usage context: borrow plans check HTX's live currency quota, and the resulting plan must not be treated as an execution request. However, it does not name sibling tools or state explicit conditions for choosing this over htx_validate_trade_intent or htx_preview_trade, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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