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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the call costs $0.05 USDC via x402, unpaid calls return payment terms instead of data, and the parameters are derived from live 24h market structure. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The payment warning is placed first, which is the most critical operational detail, and the functional purpose follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a required enum, the description and schema together cover the inputs. The return value is described at a high level (range, spacing, order size). It also explains the unpaid-call behavior, which is essential. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact payload shape could help, but it's adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so both `asset` and `capital` are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail; it only restates the concepts of 'pair' and 'capital amount.' Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific deliverable (recommended grid-trading parameters: range, spacing, order size), the input context (pair and capital amount), and the data source (live 24h market structure). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like price, sentiment, or regime, which address different concerns.

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 phrase 'Recommended grid-trading parameters for a pair and capital amount' implies the use case clearly. The context of grid trading is explicit, and the tool's purpose is distinct enough that an agent wouldn't confuse it with siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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