trading_position_margin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'adjust margin' without revealing potential side effects, required conditions (e.g., position existence, isolated margin mode), or error scenarios (e.g., insufficient funds). This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action. However, it could be more structured to enumerate the type options.

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 the tool's low complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about return values, error handling, or prerequisites. An agent might need trial-and-error to understand expected behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely repeating the meaning of type. No additional context for amount range or symbol format is provided.

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 verb '调整' (adjust) and the resource '逐仓保证金' (isolated position margin), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like trading_set_margin_type.

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 implies that type=1 is for increase and type=0 for decrease, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trading_set_margin_type or trading_place_order. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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