System Configuration

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and read-only hints. The description goes beyond by naming the two returned objects (config, portfolio_margin) and giving example fields (contract addresses, chain IDs, margin parameters), so the agent understands what to expect without requiring a separate call.

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 (under 15 lines), with clear sections, bullet points, and a 'Returns' block. Every sentence adds value, and important 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?

Given zero parameters, high schema coverage, presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, and the structure of its output. No gaps remain.

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 has 0 parameters, so description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves exchange's global parameters and portfolio margin risk factors, using specific nouns like 'fee schedules', 'trading limits', and 'portfolio margin factors', distinguishing it from sibling tools like paradex_system_state or paradex_markets.

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?

Provides explicit bullet points on when to use the tool, such as checking fee schedules, verifying trading limits, and reviewing portfolio margin factors. It includes example use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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