setPriceLimit

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

Annotations already show this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds independent behavioral facts: a 5 req/s rate limit, that linear/inverse settings apply globally to all futures, and the auto-adjust/reject effect. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 structure is front-loaded: purpose first, then rate limit, then an agent hint covering when and how. The agent hint partially re-states the first sentence ('control... how orders are handled'), which costs a point, but no sentence is filler.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a 2-parameter tool, but it references 'getUserSettings' while the actual sibling is getUserSettingConfig, which could misdirect an agent. It also leaves the behavior of the spot category unspecified beyond the generic category concept. These are noteworthy gaps despite otherwise good coverage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the entire parameter burden. It maps modifyEnable=true to auto-adjustment and false to rejection, and explains that category linear/inverse affects all futures. It does not spell out the spot category's exact behavior, but the two required parameters are otherwise meaningfully covered.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Configure') and a precise resource ('price limit action behavior') scoped 'per product category'. The second sentence explains the concrete outcome (auto-adjusted or rejected), making it easy to distinguish from read-only price-limit siblings like getOrderPriceLimit or subscribePriceLimit.

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 states when to invoke it: 'Use this to control how orders are handled when they exceed price limits.' It also points to a related getter for checking current configuration. It stops short of giving when-not-to-use conditions or naming alternative setters such as setLeverage or setMarginMode.

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