setPriceLimit

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool toggles between 'auto-adjusted' and 'rejected' behaviors for orders exceeding limits. It also mentions a rate limit of 5 req/s. However, it does not detail whether the change is reversible or if it affects existing orders, which would be helpful for a configuration tool.

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 organized with a clear purpose statement, then rate limit, then an agent hint. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Agent hint' label could be removed to save space. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, rate limit, and suggests a sibling tool for checking current config. It does not describe return values, but for a configuration tool this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that 'category' refers to product categories (linear, inverse, spot) and notes that settings for linear or inverse apply to all futures. It clarifies that 'modifyEnable=true' means auto-adjustment and 'false' means rejection. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 'Configure price limit action behavior per product category' with a specific verb and resource. It explains that it controls whether orders are auto-adjusted or rejected. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other configuration sibling tools like setLeverage or setMarginMode, which share the same 'set' prefix.

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 a clear hint on when to use the tool: 'Use this to control how orders are handled when they exceed price limits.' It explains the boolean parameter's effect and suggests using getUserSettings to check current config, offering an alternative. It does not include explicit 'when not to use' conditions, but the context is sufficient.

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