fetch_market_risk_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the auth profile ('Public — no credentials needed') and the data source (engine's market registry), which implies a read-only, non-mutating call. It says nothing about behavior for invalid/delisted markets, caching, or rate limits, so the safety picture is only partially filled in.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource and followed by the scope and auth note. No filler or redundancy; every phrase carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the return contents (margin requirements and maximum leverage), which is the key thing an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter lookup, missing only failure/edge-case behavior for unknown market ids.

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% for the single market_id parameter, including a concrete format example ("BTC-USDX-PERP"). The description adds no syntax, casing, or validity rules beyond that, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a scoped resource ('one market's risk parameters') with the actual payload named: margin requirements and maximum leverage. It also names the source of truth (the engine's market registry), which differentiates it from neighbors such as list_market_specs, get_mark_price, and get_market_status.

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 establishes context ('one market', 'public — no credentials needed') so an agent can infer this is a per-market lookup on the read path. However it never says when to prefer this over list_market_specs or get_market_status, nor does it state what to do if the market id is unknown. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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