getVipMarginData

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a public endpoint needing no authentication, and the collateralRatio field is deprecated since Feb 19, 2025, directing users to a newer endpoint. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps agents avoid relying on outdated data.

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 core purpose, followed by useful return fields and the deprecation warning. The deprecation note is repeated in the agent hint, which introduces minor redundancy, but overall every section earns its place and the structure is scannable.

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 endpoint with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, its authentication requirements, and a critical deprecation concern. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the listed data categories and sibling routing provide sufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It does say the query is 'by VIP level and/or coin,' which conveys that currency and vipLevel are optional filters, and the agent hint repeats 'for each coin at each VIP level.' However, it does not specify accepted formats, examples, or value constraints for these parameters, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action and resource: 'Query margin data for Unified accounts by VIP level and/or coin.' It also enumerates the returned data categories, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from other margin-related siblings. The deprecation note explicitly references getTieredCollateralRatio, further disambiguating it from a closely related endpoint.

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 agent hint provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to check borrowing terms (max amount, hourly rate, collateral eligibility) for each coin at each VIP level.' It also identifies when to use an alternative by noting the deprecated collateralRatio field and pointing to getTieredCollateralRatio. It does not broadly discuss when not to use this tool versus all related siblings, but the targeted alternative guidance is clear.

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