getComboLimit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only validation (no side effects), returns allowable ranges and a check_code, includes a rate limit of 10 requests per second, and explains the behavior on validation failure (check_code non-zero). This is sufficient for an agent to understand its 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 reasonably concise, front-loading purpose and usage. It has a clear structure: purpose, usage instruction, rate limit, and agent hint. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrases.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the symbol_settings array, the enum values for adjust_position_mode, or the boolean need_to_slippage. The output is only partially described (ranges for some parameters, check_code). An agent would need more information to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions some parameters (initial margin, leverage, rebalancing threshold, time interval, TP/SL percentages, trailing stop) but fails to explain others like adjust_position_mode (an enum with unexplained values), symbol_settings (a complex array), need_to_slippage (boolean), and app_name. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 validates input parameters for creating a futures combo bot and returns allowable ranges. It uses specific verbs ('validates', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('input parameters for creating a futures combo bot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createComboBot (which creates) and getComboDetail (which retrieves details).

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 tells the agent to use this endpoint before calling /v5/fcombobot/create to ensure parameters are within valid bounds. It also includes an 'Agent hint' reinforcing this. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the guidance is clear and appropriate.

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