持仓模式

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

The description adds an important conditional behavior: without dual it is a read-only query with dual it changes mode. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and gives the agent a meaningful distinction beyond static annotations.

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?

Two short sentences carry the action, the mode mapping, and the no-parameter behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no waste.

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?

The description covers all usage branches and the sole parameter. It would be more complete if it described the return shape or mentioned whether switching can be blocked by existing positions, but these are minor for such a small tool.

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 document has 0% coverage for the only parameter. The description compensates fully by explaining true false and the omitted case for dual, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.

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 states a precise verb and resource: query and switch position mode, and defines the two modes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling toolers, but the resource 'position mode' is clear and distinct.

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 clear usage context: omit dual to query, provide dual to switch. It stops short of 5 because it does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as trading_positions or trading_set_margin_type.

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