insLoanCoinDeltaAmount

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Query' wording is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what is returned, restricts usage to unified accounts, and documents the default behavior when coin is omitted. It does not cover error conditions or auth requirements, but it adds meaningful transparency.

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 bulleted rules. It avoids fluff, though the 'Service: margin-server-web' line adds only marginal value for tool selection and invocation. Overall the structure is efficient and 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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, return summary, account eligibility, and filter default. It does not describe the exact response shape or error scenarios, but an agent has enough context 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 coin as a string with no description, so schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that coin is an optional filter and that omitting it returns all coins. It does not specify expected coin format or enumeration, but for a single optional parameter this is largely sufficient.

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 coin delta amount details for institutional lending hedge product.' It names the returned data ('risk unit delta amount and per-coin delta details'), which clarifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar-looking siblings like getCoinGreeks, but the institutional lending hedge product scope provides reasonable differentiation.

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 provides important usage constraints: 'Unified account only' and the optional coin filter behavior. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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