get_spot_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output fields (bounds, rows, investment, profit, status), which adds some value beyond the tool name. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), nor does it mention error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. It provides partial transparency but is not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the return contents. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is relatively complete: it says what it returns. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid or non-existent buOrderId), any rate-limit expectations, and how this tool fits into a broader workflow. It covers the essentials but lacks depth that could help an agent handle unusual cases.

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 schema lists only bu_order_id with a title 'Bu Order Id', but the description clarifies that this parameter identifies the spot grid bot by its buOrderId, which is a meaningful addition. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this explanation compensates for the lack of schema detail. It could be more explicit about the format, but it correctly conveys the parameter's purpose.

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 it retrieves the full state of a spot grid bot by its buOrderId, and enumerates the contained fields (bounds, rows, investment, profit, status). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bot_orders (which likely lists bots) and prepare_create_spot_grid (which creates them).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you need the full state of a single bot, but it does not mention when to prefer it over siblings like get_order or list_bot_orders, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is only implicit from the phrase 'Full state of one spot grid bot'.

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