binance_futures_change_leverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changes take effect immediately, do not affect current positions but only new orders, and alter margin requirements and risk levels. The risk warnings about liquidation and leverage impact add important behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear section headers, but it is quite verbose, including a lengthy output example and repeated risk warnings. It front-loads the core purpose, yet could be trimmed to essential information without losing value.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description provides a detailed output example, functional details, risk analysis, and suggested actions. It gives the agent sufficient context to understand behavior, edge cases (adjust with no positions), and consequences.

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?

Input schema covers both symbol and leverage with descriptions, examples, and ranges, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing the 1-125 range, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it modifies the leverage multiplier of a specified contract (修改指定合约的杠杆倍数) and includes a functional overview listing key effects like immediate implementation and impact on new orders. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as set_margin_type or account queries.

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' section provides clear use cases like adjusting risk exposure and optimizing capital efficiency, and the reminder advises adjusting when not holding positions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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