getPositionSymbolInfo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the 'Query' verb is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying supported contract types and the portfolio margin error condition. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise scope and an important edge-case note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the main purpose, supported contract types, and a key error case. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not clarify behavior when `symbol` is omitted, which matters for correct invocation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain `category` or `symbol` semantics. It only mentions 'symbol leverage' as a data field, which could be mistaken for the parameter, and does not clarify that `linear` covers USDT perpetual and USDC contract while `inverse` covers inverse contract. The schema enum helps, but the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: 'Query futures leverage info, such as symbol leverage, side, and position mode.' It clearly indicates the tool's domain and the kind of data returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like getPositionInfo, but the focus on leverage-specific fields gives adequate clarity.

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 intended use is implied by 'Query futures leverage info' and the listed contract types. The note that portfolio margin returns an error provides one exclusion, but no alternatives or when-to-use guidance are given. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when to choose this over related position or leverage tools.

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