getSpotMarginTradeMaxBorrowable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'Unified account only' as a precondition, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, rate limits, or account prerequisites beyond what annotations imply.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the core action and resource, followed by a one-line constraint. Every word earns its place, and the constraint is front-loaded as a distinct note that will help the agent quickly assess eligibility.

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 getter with one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, the resource, the domain (spot margin trading), and a critical account-type restriction. It does not describe the response structure, but for a single-value 'maximum borrowable amount' tool this is a minor gap.

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 the single 'currency' parameter. The phrase 'specified cryptocurrency' clarifies that currency refers to a cryptocurrency identifier, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It stops short of specifying the expected format (e.g., ticker symbol), but is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and a well-defined resource ('maximum borrowable amount') within the context of spot margin trading. It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like getSpotBorrowQuota or getSpotMarginTradeFlexibleAvailableInventory.

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 adds the explicit constraint 'Unified account only', which tells the agent a clear precondition for using the tool. It provides contextual guidance on applicable account type, but does not name alternatives or explain when to use a different sibling tool.

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