get_strategy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the output components (open orders, current price, P&L estimate). However, it does not state preconditions such as whether an active strategy must exist for the given symbol/exchange, what happens when no strategy is found, or whether the price is a live snapshot or cached value.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and the three returned components each earn their place, and nothing is redundantly repeated from the input schema or the rest of the definition.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (two flat params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description partially compensates for the missing output schema by listing what the call returns. The remaining gap is behavioral context: what occurs if no strategy is running on the queried exchange/symbol, and whether the strategy must be started before this call is valid.

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%, with both symbol and exchange already documented with examples and supported values. The description adds only implicit context that these parameters identify which grid strategy to query, but introduces no format details, ranges, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a distinct resource ('grid strategy status') and enumerates the returned data (open orders, current price, P&L estimate). The resource is unique among the sibling tools — none of the other reads (get_ticker, get_balance, get_trades) target strategy state — so it can be told apart without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 use case is implied: call this to inspect the state of a grid strategy for a given exchange/symbol. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it (e.g., when a strategy is not running), and no named alternatives such as start_grid_strategy for lifecycle operations or get_ticker for live market price.

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