open_gmx_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the order is executed asynchronously by a keeper after oracle update. However, it omits safety details like slippage, liquidation risk, fees, and required token approvals.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with action, mechanism, inputs, and return. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers main purpose and return but misses operational details like token approvals, leverage mechanics, optional chain_id, and references to sibling tools. For a complex DeFi tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value with usage tips and examples for size_delta_usd (30 decimals, example), acceptable_price (buffer guidance), and collateral_token (use WETH). This enhances understanding 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 clearly states the action (opens a leveraged perpetual position), the resource (GMX V2 on Arbitrum), and the mechanism (MarketIncrease order via keeper). It differentiates from siblings like 'close_gmx_position' and 'list_gmx_markets' by focusing on opening positions.

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?

Provides usage context (returns transaction ID for tracking with get_transaction_status) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Lacks mention of prerequisites like collateral approval or market availability.

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