validateGridInput

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that no authentication is required, the guest-mode rate limit, the response structure (min/max ranges and check_code), and the meaning of check_code 0. This gives the agent concrete runtime expectations despite the absence of an output schema.

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 purpose and usage, then adds auth/rate-limit context and an agent hint in a compact form. There is slight redundancy because the agent hint restates 'call before createGridBot' and the check_code behavior already mentioned.

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?

For a 14-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core flow: what the tool validates, when to call it, what the response conveys, and how to interpret a valid result. It would be stronger with an example response or the full check_code enum, but the essential guidance is present.

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 description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming parameter categories such as investment amount, grid count, price bounds, stop-loss, and take-profit. However, it does not explain individual parameter semantics, units, or the invest_mode enum values, leaving the agent to infer details from names and schema types.

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 that it validates input parameters for creating a spot grid bot and describes the output: acceptable ranges plus a check code. It explicitly names createGridBot as the downstream tool, and 'spot grid bot' distinguishes it from future-grid variants like validateFGridInput.

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 instructs the agent to use this endpoint before calling createGridBot and repeats this in the agent hint. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to validateFGridInput, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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