getPositionSymbolInfo

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

The description discloses that under portfolio margin mode, the tool returns an error, which is useful. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention other critical behaviors like rate limits, idempotency, or whether it is a read-only operation (implied by 'Query' but not explicit).

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 very short (three sentences) and to the point. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the note adds important behavior. However, the structure could be improved by grouping the note more clearly or adding a usage hint.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least outline the return format or fields. It does not. Combined with lacking parameter descriptions, the tool definition feels incomplete, especially for a query tool. The note about portfolio margin adds some context but is 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not explain the meaning or expected format of the 'symbol' and 'category' parameters beyond the enum for category. It only describes the output, not the inputs.

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 queries 'futures leverage info' and lists examples (symbol leverage, side, position mode). It also specifies supported contract types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like getPositionInfo or getAccountInfo, which may overlap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about portfolio margin returning an error is a behavioral constraint, not usage context. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use pointers are given.

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