grid_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'No side-effects, no DB writes' and specifies the return shape, which is transparent about its behavioral contract. It does not cover input validation or error behavior, but the purity claim is strong and directly addresses the main risk of unintended consequences.

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 exactly two sentences, both high-context. The first sentence front-loads the core identity ('Pure price-level calculation for a grid') and the second covers behavioral constraints and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (8 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the tool's role and output. It lacks details on how gridType (LONG/NEUTRAL/SHORT) or distribution (arithmetic/geometric) affect the calculation, which could be important for correct invocation, but the core applicability is clear.

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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'grid' and output fields but does not explain critical parameters like totalInvestment, levels, gridType, or distribution. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal information, leaving several parameters under-defined.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Pure price-level calculation for a grid.' It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'No side-effects, no DB writes,' which separates it from grid_state and Kraken order tools. The output is defined (price, side, volume), making the tool's unique function unmistakable.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: it is a safe, side-effect-free calculation, ideal for planning before order placement, in contrast to stateful or order-executing siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when *not* to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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