Adjust spot grid parameters

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the 'running order' constraint and a 'Weight: 1' rate-limit note, but says nothing about reversibility, validation failures, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the adjustable fields come before the trailing Weight metadata. Nothing is wasted, though 'Weight: 1' is peripheral to the agent's decision.

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 would ideally note what a successful adjustment returns or how partial parameter usage is treated (e.g. updating only top without bottom). It covers the core action and relies on annotations for safety, leaving moderate gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so each of the five parameters (row, top, bottom, buOrderId, quoteInvest) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the same fields and adds no format, unit, or constraint detail, so 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-plus-resource (adjust spot grid parameters) and enumerates what can be modified: grid range (top/bottom/row) or investment. The 'spot' qualifier distinguishes it from the many futures-grid siblings. It does not, however, name the closely related check tool (pionex_bot_check_spot_grid_params) that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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 'for a running spot grid order' implies a precondition (the grid must already exist and be active), which is useful implicit guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no routing to the check or cancel siblings, so usage is only weakly implied.

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