set_auto_add_margin

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'MEDIUM risk' adds some context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain the consequences of enabling auto-add-margin (e.g., potential liquidation risk) or what happens on failure. While not contradictory, the description lacks depth for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence and a parameter list. Every word is useful, and the risk level is front-loaded. No unnecessary information.

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 simple mutation operation and the presence of an output schema (not required to explain return values), the description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral depth prevents a perfect score.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by listing each parameter with its allowed values (e.g., autoAddMargin: 0 to turn off, 1 to turn on; positionIdx: 0 for one-way, 1 for hedge buy, 2 for hedge sell). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by clarifying the semantics.

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: 'Turn on/off auto-add-margin for isolated margin position (MEDIUM risk).' It uses a specific verb (turn on/off), identifies the resource (auto-add-margin), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_leverage or set_trading_stop by focusing on auto-add-margin functionality.

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 does not specify prerequisites, conditions for turning auto-add-margin on/off, or mention any related tools for comparison. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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