Check futures grid add margin (dry-run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by confirming nothing is executed, disclosing the return content (before/after liquidation prices), noting that openPrice is not accepted and the live market price is used, and stating Weight: 1 (a rate-limit signal not present in structured fields). It does not, however, address the unusual idempotentHint=false on an ostensibly read-only validation.

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 dry-run purpose, then the validation behavior and output, then the openPrice caveat and weight. Every sentence earns its place, though restating the title verbatim as the opening line is mildly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (estimated liquidation prices before and after the change). Combined with the dry-run guarantee, the openPrice note, and the weight figure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds only a negative constraint ('Does not accept openPrice') and does not clarify the semantics of 'amount' as add-vs-reduce (the schema itself says 'add / reduce'), leaving the schema to carry the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb+resource (validate an add-margin amount on a futures grid bot), states the dry-run semantics ('without executing'), and even names the concrete output ('estimated liquidation prices before and after'). This clearly separates it from the sibling pionex_bot_add_margin_futures_grid (which actually executes) and from the reduce-margin 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?

The dry-run framing makes the when-to-use condition clear: validate before committing margin. However, it never explicitly names the execution sibling (pionex_bot_add_margin_futures_grid) as the follow-up action, so the agent must infer the pairing from the naming convention rather than being routed explicitly.

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