addMargin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action adds real collateral, includes a rate limit (5 req/s), and warns of automatic execution risks via the agent hint. It does not detail failure modes or reversibility but is sufficiently transparent for a mutation tool.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then rate limit and agent hint. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly better formatting (e.g., bullets) could improve readability, but the content is efficient.

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?

No annotations or output schema are provided. The description covers purpose, user confirmation requirement, and rate limit but omits parameter details and result behavior. It is adequate but incomplete for a 5-parameter required tool.

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 0% with 5 required parameters. The description only hints at positionId and amount via the agent hint, leaving productId, orderLinkId, and quoteAccountType unexplained. Given low coverage, more parameter context is needed.

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 tool adds collateral to a leveraged Liquidity Mining position to avoid liquidation. It specifies the verb 'add', the resource 'collateral/margin', and the purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like addLiquidity or addReduceMargin.

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 clarifies when to use the tool (to avoid liquidation on leveraged positions) and includes an agent hint requiring user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context is clear.

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