Check futures grid pause (dry-run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: it's a dry-run, returns current and post-trigger estimated liquidation prices, and doesn't accept openPrice. It doesn't detail rate limits or response format, but with annotations covering safety, this is good.

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 description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only necessary details. Every sentence earns its place, and the weight note is brief.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (current plus post-trigger estimated liquidation prices) and the dry-run nature. It also clarifies the openPrice exclusion. It could mention whether it requires specific permissions or the response structure, but it's largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail, including enums and optionality. The description adds some clarification about triggerPausePriceUp/Down being independent, but that's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action (validate whether a futures grid order can be paused) and explicitly notes it's a dry-run that does not execute. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pionex_bot_pause_futures_grid by clarifying this is a check/dry-run operation.

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 description clarifies that the tool does not execute and returns estimated liquidation prices. It also notes that openPrice is not accepted and the backend uses the live market price. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. the non-check version, though the dry-run nature is implied.

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