Pre-Trade Check

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are true. The description confirms this is a validation check (not a mutation) and adds detailed behavioral context: returns account status, free collateral, current position, bbo, market constraints, estimates, ready flag, and reasons. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description provides rich behavioral details beyond the 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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points for usage scenarios and return fields. Every sentence adds value, and the layout makes it easy to scan. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 complexity (3 required params, no nested objects, presence of output schema), the description provides a thorough overview of all return fields (account_status, free_collateral, current_position, bbo, market_constraints, estimates, ready_to_trade, not_ready_reasons). This fully informs the agent about what to expect and how to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the three parameters (market_id, side, size) but does not add new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., 'Market symbol, e.g. BTC-USD-PERP' is already in schema). It reinforces the context but does not enhance meaning.

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 'Validate a trade idea before submitting an order.' It lists specific use cases (confirming collateral, checking market limits, getting bid/ask and position) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by suggesting it replaces multiple separate calls. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to confirm sufficient free collateral, check order size within market limits, get current bid/ask and position, and receive a ready_to_trade flag. It also directs users to use this instead of calling other tools like paradex_account_summary, etc., clearly indicating when not to use it.

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