util_grid

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the operation (calculate). It omits crucial traits like side effects (none expected), rounding behavior, handling of edge cases (e.g., lower > upper), and whether the tool modifies any state. For a computational tool, this is partially acceptable but still leaves gaps.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is perfectly front-loaded and every character serves a purpose.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It only says 'calculate', leaving the agent to guess the output format (e.g., array of price levels). Additionally, it does not clarify how spacing types ('arithmetic' vs 'geometric') affect calculation or the role of tickSize. This is incomplete for a tool that likely produces structured grid levels.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in Chinese (e.g., '下限', '上限'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers parameters, but description does not enhance understanding of spacing types or tickSize precision.

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 Chinese description '计算网格交易层级' clearly states the tool computes grid trading levels. It is specific to grid trading, distinguishing it from sibling utilities like util_average or util_stddev. However, the lack of an English translation may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, output interpretation, or comparison with similar utility tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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