Check futures grid resume (dry-run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns estimated liquidation prices after resuming without executing, and requires the order to be paused. It could still state what happens on a failing validation response, but the added context is useful.

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 short and front-loaded, with the dry-run behavior stated first and the precondition last. A little of the wording repeats the title, but it is efficient.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough to invoke correctly. It explains the dry-run result and paused-state precondition; only failure behavior is left unspecified.

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 the single buOrderId parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: it validates whether a paused futures grid order can be resumed and returns estimated liquidation prices after resuming, without executing. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling write tool pionex_bot_resume_futures_grid, since this is the dry-run counterpart.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: the order must be in 'paused' state, and the description makes the dry-run nature explicit compared to the real resume tool. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling, but the check/execute split is strongly implied.

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