getFMartDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full disclosure responsibility. It includes a significant behavioral trait: 'Rate limit: 10 requests per second per UID'. It also describes the response contents (PnL, position, round progress, close reason) which informs the agent about output structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, but the verb 'Retrieves' implicitly conveys a safe read.

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 well-structured: it opens with the main purpose and a bullet-like list of returned information, then covers bot_id source, rate limit, and an agent hint. While not ultra-concise, every sentence adds value and information is front-loaded. The length is justified by the amount of useful detail.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of return categories (configuration, status, PnL, position info, round progress, margin, timestamps). It also hints at a close reason when stopped. Missing are exact field names or structure, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what data is available. The rate limit and bot_id source further complete the context.

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 has one parameter (bot_id) with no description, but the description adds crucial context: 'The bot_id is a numeric ID obtained from createFMartBot or bot listing endpoints'. This tells the agent where the value comes from, which is beyond the schema's type-only information. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, this compensation is effective, earning a high score.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Retrieves comprehensive details' and specifies the resource 'futures Martingale bot'. It lists the categories of information (configuration, PnL, position, rounds) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Prefer this over other endpoints when answering questions about a specific bot's performance'. This provides a precise and differentiated purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to check the status and performance of a Martingale bot' and explains how to obtain the bot_id ('from createFMartBot or bot listing endpoints'). It also advises preferring this endpoint over others for bot performance questions, offering clear when-to-use direction relative to siblings.

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