getPositionTiers

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the main disclosure burden is light; the description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: tiers are ordered small to large, margin rates use 8-decimal precision, and omitted currency returns all configured coins. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded and bulleted, but it repeats the same content in the agent hint ('Returns position tier information', 'Pass currency... omit') and includes redundant wording. It is longer than necessary for a one-parameter read endpoint.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient return-field names (borrowLimit, positionMMR, positionIMR, maxLeverage), ordering, precision, auth expectation, and default behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only defines currency as a string with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description compensates by explaining filtering vs. omission behavior. It fully covers the single optional parameter's semantics, though it doesn't specify accepted coin formats or examples.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Query' and identifies resource 'position tier data for spot margin trading', listing fields it returns (borrowLimit, margin rates, maxLeverage). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as getTieredCollateralRatio or getSpotMarginTradeState, so differentiation relies on the named resource rather than an exclusion statement.

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?

It gives clear usage context for the only parameter: pass currency to filter, omit for all configured coins, and notes auth requirement. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related sibling tools in the spot margin/risk domain, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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