update_leverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely says 'update' without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or the impact on existing orders/positions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clean Args list with examples. No redundant words, and every sentence adds 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?

The input parameters are well-covered, and the existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, the lack of usage context and behavioral transparency leaves the description just adequate for a simple mutation tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains all three parameters with examples (e.g., 'BTC', 'ETH', 10 for 10x) and clarifies the boolean cross_margin semantics (cross vs. isolated margin).

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('leverage for a coin'), making it distinct from sibling tools like modify_order or set_take_profit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or add further scope beyond the coin, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'before opening a position' or 'does not affect existing positions.' The intended use is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no when/when-not conditions are stated.

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