switchPositionMode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the modes, supported product type, and preconditions. It could be improved by describing failure behavior (e.g., what happens if prerequisites are not met), but overall it gives good 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a hint. Every sentence adds unique value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema and limited schema coverage, the description provides essential context: supported assets, prerequisites, and parameter priority. It lacks return value or error details, but for a simple switch operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains the mode values (0 and 3), the roles of symbol and coin, and the priority rule. It could explicitly mention that category must be 'linear', but this is implied by the USDT perpetual reference.

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 clearly states the tool switches between one-way (mode=0) and hedge (mode=3) position modes, and specifies that only USDT perpetual contracts support hedge mode. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'setHedgingMode', which may have a similar purpose.

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 clear context: when to switch modes, the prerequisite that no open positions or orders exist, and the constraint that symbol or coin must be provided with symbol taking priority. It does not, however, specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives like setHedgingMode.

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