estimate_margin

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

The description conveys that this is a calculation/estimation tool and implies it does not place orders, which is useful. However, with only openWorldHint annotation, the burden is on the description to disclose side effects, auth requirements, or return behavior, none of which are addressed beyond the basic calculation intent.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Calculate margin requirements') and immediately provides context ('before placing them').

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 simple one-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. It lacks detail about the exact nature of the margin (e.g., span vs exposure) or the return format, but since there is no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential function adequately.

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 description for the 'positions' parameter is comprehensive (100% coverage), providing JSON structure and field details. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('calculate') and resource ('margin requirements') with a clear scope ('for a batch of potential orders before placing them'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like estimate_charges and order-related tools.

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 phrase 'before placing them' provides clear context for when to use this tool, distinguishing it from order placement tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use estimate_charges instead, which would make it fully explicit.

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