Add margin to futures grid order

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

Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that it runs addMarginCheck validation, executes asynchronously, affects available balance and liquidation price, and omits a status field. The 'call with care' warning and async disclosure are genuinely useful. Annotations already cover destructive=true, so this layered context raises it above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then validation behavior, async nature, and side effects, ending with weight. All four lines earn their place with no padding.

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?

Covers the async execution, missing status field, validation flow, and balance/liquidation impact, which is thorough for a mutation without an output schema. Could go further on permissions or reversal, but it's substantially 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 coverage is 100% and parameters are self-describing. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details about coin, amount, or buOrderId beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (add/transfer margin) and resource (futures grid order). Distinguishes itself from reduce_margin by naming 'add margin', but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling pionex_bot_reduce_margin_futures_grid or the _check variant.

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?

Mentions it runs the same validation as addMarginCheck and executes asynchronously, implying a check-then-execute workflow. However, it never states when to use this vs the check variant or when not to call it.

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