get_strategy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status information, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly improved by structuring key points (e.g., listing the retrieved data more clearly) for better readability, though it remains highly concise.

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 the complexity of a grid strategy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., what 'P&L estimate' includes), error handling, and dependencies on other tools like 'start_grid_strategy'. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (exchange and symbol). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the symbol relates to the grid strategy or any constraints on the exchange-symbol combination. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('current grid strategy status'), specifying what information is retrieved (open orders, current price, P&L estimate). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'get_ticker', which might provide overlapping or related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an active grid strategy, or compare it to siblings like 'list_orders' for order details or 'get_ticker' for price data, leaving usage context implied at best.

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