Grid Symbol Info

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

The read-only and open-world hints already signal this is a safe lookup. The description adds helpful behavioral context by detailing what the response includes, such as price-step tables and authorization/channel info, while clarifying that the lookup is symbol-based rather than order-based. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, inputs, and output content efficiently. However, it appears truncated mid-sentence ('supported s...'), which slightly reduces polish and completeness.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It conveys the expected output and usage context well; only the truncated ending prevents a perfect score.

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 schema already describes the single required parameter with a concrete example ('700.HK'), so baseline coverage is high. The description's added clarification that the tool takes 'a symbol, not an order_id' adds real semantic value by preventing confusion with order-based endpoints.

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 explicitly states the tool provides 'pre-trade grid setup info for a security' and enumerates distinct outputs: security name, last price, board lot sizes, price-step table, and channel/authorization info. The phrase 'takes a symbol, not an order_id' also helps distinguish this tool from order-based grid tools like grid_detail.

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 phrase 'pre-trade grid setup info' establishes a clear usage context: use this when setting up a grid trade for a security before submitting an order. The explicit note that it takes a symbol rather than an order_id provides useful direction away from order-specific tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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