Adjust futures grid (add investment / modify range)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the rate-limit note 'Weight: 1' and the mode list; it says nothing about the PnL precondition, the PROFIT_LESS_THAN_ZERO rejection, or that investment base may be recalculated after modification — all of which live in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and modes; no filler. Minor waste: the first line simply repeats the tool title verbatim, and 'Weight: 1' is metadata rather than description content.

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?

This is an 18-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a dedicated check/preview sibling. The description omits the check-before-execute workflow, the interaction between the many conditional flags, and any indication of failure modes — significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the schema itself carries detailed conditional semantics (keepInvestment/isReinvest/quoteInvestment precedence). The description adds nothing beyond restating the mode names already in the type enum, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adjust futures grid') and enumerates the three modes (add investment, modify range, set trigger investment), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling mutations like add_margin_futures_grid, reduce_margin_futures_grid, and cancel_futures_grid_order. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its own dry-run sibling pionex_bot_adjust_futures_grid_params_check, nor from the spot equivalent pionex_bot_adjust_spot_grid_params.

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 enumerated modes imply which 'type' values are relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about prerequisites (e.g. validating via adjust_futures_grid_params_check first), and no exclusion of adjacent tools such as add_margin_futures_grid or reduce_futures_grid. Usage must be inferred from the schema's enum rather than the description.

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