binance_calculate_position_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the calculation respects minimum order quantity, provides a detailed output example showing risk calculations, margin requirements, and trading suggestions. It also includes warnings about leverage and stop-loss behavior. It doesn't explicitly state that no order is placed, but the calculator nature is clear, and the rich output example adds significant transparency.

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 excessively long and padded with generic trading advice (e.g., '盈利后可考虑移动止损保护利润', '不建议在重要数据发布前后开新仓位'). While it is structured with headings and front-loaded with the purpose, much of the content is not essential for tool invocation, making it verbose rather than concise.

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 includes a comprehensive output example that compensates for the lack of an output schema, illustrating the return format and calculations. It also covers usage context, risk warnings, and execution tips. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and expected results, though it could be more explicit about edge cases or error handling, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 baseline is 3. The description simply lists the input parameters in the output example (risk amount, entry price, stop loss, leverage) but adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema. It reinforces but doesn't expand parameter semantics, warranting a baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates contract position size based on risk parameters (risk amount, entry price, stop loss, leverage). It specifies '仓位大小计算器' (position size calculator) and explains it computes the optimal opening quantity, distinguishing it as a risk-management calculator. While a sibling 'get_optimal_trade_size' exists, the description's focus on stop-loss-based risk calculation gives it a distinct identity.

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 '适用场景' (applicable scenarios) section explicitly lists when to use the tool: for professional trading strategies, quant risk control, beginners learning position sizing, and risk systems setting max positions. This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping 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.