Leverage tiers: max leverage and maintenance margin per perpetual on every venue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description safely adds that data is 'recorded daily by ByKaranteli' and includes a change log, which helps the agent understand freshness and history. It does not cover rate limits or response formatting, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger conditions, return contents, and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, it covers the core needs: supported intents, returned ladder fields, change log, data provenance, and example parameter values. It could clarify what happens when both parameters are omitted (e.g., returning all venues/symbols), but the schema marking both optional and the phrase 'per venue' make this reasonably inferable.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete accepted venue ids (bybit, okx, gate, htx, bitget, mexc) and clarifies that symbol means a base asset, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 concrete user intents ('how much leverage an exchange allows on a coin', 'maintenance margin or risk limit ladder') and explicitly names the returned resource: tier, notional floor/cap, max leverage, maintenance margin rate, plus a change log. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling market-data tools by naming a unique resource and data source.

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?

It gives explicit trigger examples ('which venue offers the highest leverage for a symbol', 'whether an exchange recently cut leverage') and practical invocation guidance ('Pass symbol for one base asset... venue for one exchange'). It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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