getSpotBorrowQuota

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the response distinguishes between available balance and balance plus borrowable amount depending on margin status, the max borrowable calculation incorporates platform limits, IMR/MMR, and capital pool availability, and latency may increase in extreme volatility. No contradiction exists.

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 with a concise purpose statement, explicit constraints, a 'Behaviour' section, and an agent hint. Every sentence adds value, there is no repetition of schema information, and the most important scope information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the two key return concepts. It also covers supported account types, product category, and behavioral edge cases. It doesn't detail response fields, pagination, or error conditions, but for a simple read-only query with three self-explanatory parameters, the coverage is strong.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that category must be 'spot' and that the tool applies to xStock tokens, which adds some meaning to the category/symbol pairing. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of 'side' or 'symbol', though the enum and parameter names are fairly self-explanatory. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the available spot borrow quota for margin trading,' and clearly defines what the endpoint returns (maximum tradeable amount including borrowable portion, and actual available amount without borrowing). This is distinct and actionable, and it differentiates the tool from the broader set of margin-related siblings.

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 explicitly states constraints: only supports Unified Trade Account (UTA) and only supports the 'spot' category. The agent hint further clarifies applicability (xStock tokens only, not equity or commodity perpetuals), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This is more specific than most tool descriptions.

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