PCM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get futures leverage tiers'), without mentioning whether it's read-only, safe, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential financial implications.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get futures leverage tiers for trading pairs') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or rate limits, nor does it hint at the return format (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool in a financial context with multiple parameters, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'exchange' or 'symbol' values are used. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('futures leverage tiers for trading pairs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set-leverage' (which modifies leverage) or 'get-exchange-info' (which might include leverage data), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'set-leverage' (for modification) or 'get-exchange-info' (which might overlap), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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