Validate Fund Order

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) carry the safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: no order is placed, auth is required, and the validation response contains fees, limits, and estimated units/amount. There is mild tension between 'places NO order' and readOnlyHint=false, but the claim is narrower than a full read-only assertion, so it is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value fact (no order placed), then returns, then auth, then parameter hints. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parameter sentence duplicates schema content that could have been dropped.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: no side effects, auth requirement, the shape of the returned validation result, and the two mutually exclusive amount/units paths. The server-defined optional selectors are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the key semantics (counter_id origin, action values, currency examples, amount-vs-units mutual exclusivity) but adds essentially nothing the schema descriptions do not already say, and it is silent on fund_source, account_channel, and dividend_option.

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 verb and resource (pre-trade validation of a fund buy/sell order) and immediately negates the most likely misreading: 'Places NO order — it only checks the request against the fund channel.' That distinguishes it cleanly from fund_submit_order / fund_order, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Implies the when-to-use context clearly (run before placing an order) and names where counter_id comes from (fund_hot / fund_list) plus the allowed action values. It does not explicitly say 'use fund_submit_order to actually place the order,' so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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