Collect settled earnings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, openWorld. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the required Earn permission scope, the settled-state precondition, the weight (1), and a worked response showing the boolean result and echoed clientDualId. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say what happens on retry of a non-idempotent collect.

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?

Purpose, permission, weight, and precondition are front-loaded before the examples. The request/response JSON is not waste since there is no output schema, but the examples make the entry longer than a single tight paragraph would be.

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 3-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission, precondition, weight, and return shape via example. The one gap is that the example body drops the required productId, leaving the agent to reconcile it against the schema.

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 itself defines all three parameters; baseline is 3. The example body is marginally helpful but actually omits the required `productId`, which makes the illustration incomplete rather than clarifying.

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: 'Collects settled Dual Investment earnings into the user's spot account.' That is unambiguous against siblings like pionex_earn_dual_get_invests or pionex_earn_dual_revoke_invest, though those siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Only orders in a settled state can be collected' and 'Requires `Earn` permission' give real preconditions for when the call will succeed. It does not name competing tools (e.g. get_invests vs. collect) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top tier.

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