Check futures grid reduce margin (dry-run)

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral value: it returns estimated liquidation prices before/after, reports failure via checkResult=false with reason EXCEEDS_MAX_AMOUNT, and discloses Weight: 1 for rate-limit budgeting. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the dry-run nature and validation behavior come first, then the error contract, then the weight. The opening line restates the title almost verbatim, which is minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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-value burden and does so adequately by naming liquidation prices before/after and the checkResult/reason failure shape. What is missing is the explicit relationship to the executing counterpart tool, which matters given the large sibling set.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description references the maxAmount hard limit and the amount semantics but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 states a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (futures grid reduce-margin), and the '(dry-run)' plus 'without executing' framing cleanly separates it from the mutating sibling pionex_bot_reduce_margin_futures_grid. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pairing rather than being told.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool validates a reduce-margin amount before committing, which naturally precedes pionex_bot_reduce_margin_futures_grid. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or when-not-to-use guidance, and no statement about required auth or prerequisites.

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