get_margins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it clarifies the operation is hypothetical and therefore not an order execution. It also discloses the return content (buy/sell margins and min/max price bounds). It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or estimation caveats, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and timing, and the second discloses the return fields. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is 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 three-parameter estimation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it computes, when it is used, and what it returns. It is slightly incomplete on parameter-specific nuances and alternative tool routing, but those are minor relative to the tool's low complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detailed meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already lists ('price', 'amount', 'instrument_name'); those descriptions remain generic. No additional context like units, precision, or order direction semantics is supplied.

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 states a specific action ('Estimate the margin required for a hypothetical trade') with a clear resource and timing ('before placing it'). It also distinguishes its output from simple trade execution by listing what it returns. This is immediately differentiated from the trading and position sibling tools.

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 phrase 'before placing it' provides clear context that this tool is for pre-trade estimation rather than execution. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the use case is clearly implied and unlikely to be confused with order placement tools.

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