createComboBot

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the bot's behavior (manages portfolio, rebalances), rate limits (10 req/s/UID), compliance requirements (GEO IP, KYC), and the need for bot_id in later steps. It does not explicitly state whether creation is irreversible, but the information provided is substantial.

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 well-structured and efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides prerequisites, rate limits, and an agent hint in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential usage and prerequisites but fails to explain response structure beyond bot_id, many optional parameters, and error handling. It is adequate for experienced users but incomplete for full autonomous agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains required parameters (leverage, init_margin, adjust_position_mode, symbol_settings with at least one entry having symbol, target_position_percent, side) but does not describe optional parameters like adjust_position_percent, sl_percent, tp_percent, or trailing_stop_percent. Partial coverage leaves many parameters unexplained.

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 that the tool creates a futures combo trading bot that manages a portfolio of multiple futures symbols and automatically rebalances positions. It distinguishes from sibling bot creation tools by specifying 'futures combo' and mentioning rebalancing modes, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like DCABot or GridBot.

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 explicit guidelines: calling getComboLimit first to validate parameters, requiring at least one symbol_settings entry with specific fields, and noting that the bot_id is needed for subsequent operations. It also mentions rate limits and compliance checks but does not specify when to avoid using this tool or recommend alternatives.

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