Check spot grid parameters

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. Beyond that it discloses the weight (1), the FailedWithData behavior (a `data` field with min/max investment and slippage even on result=false), automatic market price fetching, and a detailed table of validation error messages and causes.

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-loads the core purpose and key rules before the error table. The validation-error table is long but each row carries distinct, actionable information; minor redundancy between prose and table.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so for the failure path (data field, min/max investment, slippage). It is largely complete for a validation/estimation tool, though the success-path estimate fields are only summarized.

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 67%, and the description richly compensates: it specifies that quote_total_investment must be positive, that `top`/`bottom` have numeric/k-digit constraints, the row range [2,1000], grid_type enum values, and precision limits. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though the description could more directly tie these constraints to the named parameters.

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+resource+scope: 'Validate spot grid bot creation parameters and estimate investment values without creating an order.' This distinguishes it from the sibling pionex_bot_create_spot_grid_order by making clear it is a non-mutating dry run.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it (pre-flight validation before creating a spot grid bot) and notes it does not create an order. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (e.g., create_spot_grid_order or check_futures_grid_params) or state when NOT to use this tool.

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