check_spot_grid_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait—this operation creates nothing—and indicates an external exchange call is made. However, it does not mention error behavior, latency, authentication needs, or what the returned verdict looks like.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, a sequencing rule, and a rationale with no filler. The non-mutating trait is front-loaded before the usage instruction.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits both parameter semantics and return-value expectations. It correctly conveys when to use the tool but not enough about how to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. The agent is left to infer what base, quote, top, bottom, row, quote_investment, and grid_type represent solely from their names.

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 identifies a specific action—ask the exchange to validate spot-grid parameters—and explicitly frames it as a non-creating operation. This distinguishes it from prepare_create_spot_grid and other spot-grid tools.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Always run this before prepare_create_spot_grid.' It also states why this tool should be used over local reasoning, making the selection criterion unmistakable.

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