start_grid_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optionally place' orders and implies a 'dryRun' parameter, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether orders are placed immediately or queued, error handling, or what happens if the strategy fails. This is inadequate for a complex trading tool with potential financial implications.

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 core functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating calculation from placement aspects.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, trading functionality) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a strategy ID, order details, or just a confirmation), error conditions, or how it integrates with other tools like 'get_strategy_status'. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'spacing' interacts with 'spacingModel' or practical examples of 'orderSize'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate and optionally place grid trading orders around the current price.' It specifies the verb ('calculate and optionally place') and resource ('grid trading orders'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_order' or 'stop_strategy' beyond the 'grid' concept.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create_order' for single orders or 'stop_strategy' for stopping strategies, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for grid trading.

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