Check futures grid adjust parameters (dry-run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and non-mutating. The description reinforces this with 'without executing' and adds 'Weight: 1' (a rate-limit/cost hint), which is useful. But it does not describe the estimated-data return shape or validation failure behavior, so with annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 content is front-loaded and efficient: a title line, a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage note, and a weight line. The title is repeated as the first line, which is slightly redundant, but otherwise there is no wasted text.

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 a read-only check tool with a fully documented 18-parameter schema and no output schema. The description conveys the dry-run nature and the sequencing relative to adjustParams, which is the key context. Given the schema's richness, it is nearly complete; only the preview return content is left implicit.

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 extensive per-parameter detail (e.g., isReinvest, keepInvestment, adjustParamsSence precedence rules). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource: validate futures grid adjust parameters as a dry-run, returning estimated data without executing. It clearly distinguishes itself as a preview/check tool versus the sibling adjustParams (and pionex_bot_adjust_futures_grid_params). However, it does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before calling adjustParams to preview the impact.' This routes the agent to the correct sequence. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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