calculate_order_margin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Calculate' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether it hits a live broker API, or what exactly the calculation is based on. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no redundant words. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It communicates the Groww-only scope and purpose, but does not explain what the returned margin value represents, any prerequisites, or how it differs from similar margin-related siblings like get_margin_for_orders. The schema covers parameters, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond saying it is for a 'specific order', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and a specific resource 'required margin for a specific order', with an explicit '(Groww only)' scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_kite_order_margins or get_margin_for_orders.

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 '(Groww only)' qualifier gives clear context that this tool is exclusively for Groww broker margin calculations, which helps differentiate it from Kite-based alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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