getOrderPriceLimit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add further context. It adds that no authentication is required, lists supported products, and explains that the values are current/real-time limits. This meaningfully extends the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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-organized with bullets and notes, but it is notably repetitive. The 'Do not use for tick size' guidance appears twice, and the agent hint largely duplicates the earlier use-case bullets. It could be tightened without losing meaning, though the structure aids readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly names the return fields buyLmt and sellLmt. It also covers authentication requirements, supported products, parameter defaults, and the main alternative tool. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to do with the result.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It states that symbol is required, that category defaults to linear, and maps supported products to the category enum. It does not explicitly define the symbol format, but the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the function: retrieving the allowable price range for order placement, with specific return values buyLmt and sellLmt. It also distinguishes itself from getInstrumentsInfo by explicitly saying it should not be used for tick size or price precision. This gives an agent a precise, unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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 use cases: validating limit order prices before submission, avoiding price-out-of-range rejections, and checking real-time limits. It also names the alternative tool for the related but distinct tick-size use case. The agent hint reinforces when to call it, making the decision boundary very clear.

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