getRiskLimit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: no authentication required, cursor-based pagination, category required, symbol optional, and that all risk tiers are returned for the specified symbol. No contradiction 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 uses bullet-like structure, but it is repetitive: the return fields and purpose are restated three times, and the getInstrumentsInfo alternative appears twice. It could be tightened without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data (risk tiers, margin rates, leverage caps, position size limits), supported products, auth requirement, pagination behavior, and parameter cardinality. It omits exact response envelope and cursor usage details, so not a 5, but it is largely complete for a simple read-only query.

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. It explicitly states 'category is required; symbol is optional (omit to get all symbols for the category)' and mentions cursor-based pagination. It does not fully explain cursor mechanics or map the linear/inverse enum values to the listed products, but it adds meaningful semantics the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query tiered risk limit parameters for perpetual and futures contracts, including position size limits, initial/maintenance margin rates, and maximum leverage per tier.' It clearly enumerates what the tool returns and explicitly distinguishes itself from getInstrumentsInfo, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this endpoint when you need to' list with concrete scenarios, plus a direct 'Do not use this endpoint for instrument-level leverage filter — use getInstrumentsInfo instead.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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