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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) but adds no extra behavioral context such as rate limits, required permissions, or return behavior. With annotations already covering safety, the description contributes little beyond the basic 'get' semantics.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with one fully documented parameter and a clear sibling list tool, the description is adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned what 'details' are included (e.g., margin tier, status), but this is a minor gap.

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%, with the single parameter well-described by 'Currency pair, e.g. ADA_USDT'. The description itself adds no additional parameter insight, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and identifies the exact resource ('specific unified margin currency pair'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling list tool (cex_margin_list_uni_currency_pairs). The word 'specific' signals this is a single-pair retrieval operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cex_margin_list_uni_currency_pairs. The word 'specific' implies a single pair, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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