Add investment to spot grid

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds almost nothing beyond the 'running order' precondition. It does not disclose that real funds are committed, whether the quote amount is pulled from available balance, minimum amounts, or any rate/permission constraints for what is effectively a fund-moving operation.

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 first line duplicates the title verbatim and 'Weight: 1.' is metadata noise, so the prose is not fully earning its place. The body is short and front-loaded, but a third of it is redundant.

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 destructive financial mutation with no output schema, the description omits what happens on success or failure, whether grid state is altered, and when the operation is appropriate. The well-covered schema and existing annotations carry some of the load, but the definition is still thin for this operation.

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% for both parameters (buOrderId and quoteInvest are fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no formatting, currency, or minimum-value detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a verb and resource ('add investment to a running spot grid order'), but the first line merely restates the title, and the second line extends it only marginally. It never distinguishes this from the many sibling spot-grid tools (adjust_spot_grid_params, create_spot_grid_order, get_spot_grid_order) or from the futures counterpart add_margin_futures_grid.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus adjust_spot_grid_params or add_margin_futures_grid, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implied 'running' grid. The agent must infer everything about context from the name alone.

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