Check futures grid parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without creating an order'. Beyond that, it discloses rich behavioral detail: automatic market-price fetching, the FailedWithData contract (data field present even when result=false), and a full validation-error table mapping causes to messages and whether partial data is returned. This is far beyond what the 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?

The tables are information-dense and well organized, but the definition is long and includes some redundancy with the schema (e.g., repeating that base must end with .PERP). Still, every section earns its place for a validator with complex mode semantics; front-loaded purpose statement is good.

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?

For a validator tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input semantics under both margin modes, automatic price fetching, the FailedWithData response shape, and a complete error taxonomy with associated data flags. Nothing material is missing.

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 only 67%, but the description compensates extensively: the extra_margin mode table redefines quote_investment, extra_margin_amount, estimate_investment, and min/max_investment semantics per mode, and the validation table maps each parameter (base, trend, grid_type, bottom, top, row, leverage, condition_direction, quote_investment) to its constraint and error message. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 (validate/estimate) and resource (futures grid bot creation parameters) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling pionex_bot_create_futures_grid_order by saying 'without creating an order'. An agent can immediately tell this is the dry-run/pre-flight validator.

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?

Clear context: validate parameters and estimate investment values without creating an order. It implies this precedes creation but doesn't explicitly name pionex_bot_create_futures_grid_order as the follow-up or state when not to use it. Strong usage signal without explicit alternatives.

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