preCheckOrder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces the non-mutating behavior by stating it does not actually place the order. It adds useful context about returning margin rates in E4 format and being restricted to futures and options. No mention of rate limits or data freshness, but key side-effect behavior is well disclosed.

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 the core purpose and uses bullets for key facts. There is some redundancy: the no-order-placement behavior appears three times and the agent hint/TradFi note overlap, but each section still adds scope, return-format, or use-case value.

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 21 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies essential selection and invocation context: category scope, same parameters as Create Order, E4 margin-rate return format, and non-mutating behavior. It could elaborate on the output shape or E4 precision semantics, but it is sufficient for an agent to choose and call the tool correctly.

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%, but the description meaningfully compensates by stating 'Request parameters are the same as Create Order,' allowing the agent to reuse the createOrder tool's schema. It does not enumerate each required parameter, but the schema already provides required fields and enums, and the pointer is a strong semantic shortcut.

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?

States a specific action (validate) and resource (an order before placement), with explicit scope (futures and options, linear/option categories) and output (pre/post IMR and MMR margin rates). It also distinguishes itself from createOrder by repeatedly noting it does not actually place the order.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: before placing an order to validate margin requirements, and for TradFi equity/commodity perpetuals. It excludes non-futures/options categories and clarifies it is not for actual order creation. It does not directly name createOrder as the alternative for placing orders, but the context is strong.

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