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

Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior, but the description goes further: it discloses that the strategy pauses new rungs in trending regimes, closes the ladder in a bear, tightens/widens spacing based on volatility, and requires acknowledge_tier_b for Tier B venues. This explains the destructive impact beyond the annotations.

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 about 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: mechanics, regime behavior, venue constraints, and risk reference. It is dense yet well-structured, with no filler.

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 complex 15-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers the primary behavior, venue routing, asset restrictions, and risk acknowledgment. It leaves a few parameters unexplained but provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly and know where to look for additional details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for several key parameters: grid_spacing_pct, center_price, usd_per_level, leverage, venue, acknowledge_tier_b, range_tighten, and volatile_widen. It also refers to strategy_dca_create for the risk parameter. Some parameters like center_period, grid_levels, slippage_bps, and interval_seconds remain unexplained, preventing a perfect score.

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 opens with 'Create a perp-grid strategy -- a ladder of perp LONGS accumulated on dips,' which gives a specific verb and resource. It then explains the mechanism (rungs below center price, perp long sizing) making it clearly distinct from sibling strategy tools like DCA or market making.

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 implies when to use the tool (for accumulating longs on dips) and provides constraints (only assets with a mapped perp market, see get_venue_status). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with alternative strategies, though the mechanism and venue caveats give clear context.

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