createGridBot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limit (3 qps per UID), error behavior (status_code 421 with ban_reason_text), and specifies return value (grid_id). It also mentions optional features like trailing stop and grid trailing. Missing details on idempotency or side effects, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 with a clear main sentence, followed by optional features, prerequisites, response, rate limit, and agent hints. It is front-loaded and concise, though some details (like invest_mode explanation) could be integrated more neatly. Generally efficient.

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 (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable overview of functionality, prerequisites, and error handling. However, it lacks detailed descriptions for numerous parameters and does not cover all possible error scenarios or side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 some parameters (symbol, price range, grid count, investment amount, invest_mode) but fails to describe many others (e.g., cell_number, followed_grid_id, source, block_source, create_type, ts_percent, enable_trailing). With 20 parameters and minimal explanation, the description insufficiently adds meaning beyond the 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 'Creates a spot grid bot with the specified trading pair, price range, grid count, and investment amount,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validateGridInput and closeGridBot by describing the creation action and required parameters.

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 explicitly includes prerequisites: 'Call validateGridInput first' and 'User must be authenticated and pass KYC/compliance checks.' It also gives an agent hint to always call validateGridInput before this endpoint. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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