getComboLimit

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns parameter ranges, uses check_code to signal validation failures, and has a rate limit of 10 requests per second per UID. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, but it repeats the same guidance in the agent hint and restates the check_code behavior twice. The redundancy adds noise without adding new meaning.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description provides solid workflow context and partial response semantics, but it lacks detailed explanation of several complex parameters and the full response structure. It is adequate but not complete.

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 identifies several key parameters (init_margin, leverage, sl_percent, tp_percent, time interval, trailing stop) and explains that the response provides min/max ranges. However, it does not explain symbol_settings, adjust_position_mode, app_name, need_to_slippage, or other fields in enough detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it validates combo bot input parameters and returns allowable ranges. It clearly distinguishes itself from createComboBot and other validation tools by explicitly tying it to the combo bot creation flow.

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 says to call this endpoint before creating a combo bot and repeats this guidance as an agent hint. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative validation tools, but the workflow context is clear.

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