trading_position_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the mode change but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on existing positions), authorization requirements, or symbol compatibility. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and the parameter options. No unnecessary words, effectively 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 simple binary toggle, the description covers the essential information. However, it omits context such as trading pair restrictions or whether the mode can be changed with open positions. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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% and already defines the parameter with enum values and a description. The description adds translated labels (HedgeMode/OneWay) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 '设置' (set) and resource '持仓模式' (position mode), and explicitly distinguishes between two modes: true for two-way (HedgeMode) and false for one-way (OneWay).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trading_set_leverage or trading_set_margin_type. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without context for appropriate usage.

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