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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by explaining the conditional behavior (all symbols vs. one symbol plus trading constraints), but it does not disclose potential edge cases like large response sizes or symbol formatting requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary behavior and conveys both invocation modes without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 only one optional parameter, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers both call patterns and the relevant domain (symbols and trading constraints), though it could add a brief note about when not to use it or how results are paginated.

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 only parameter completely, including an example ('GRAM-USDT'). The description adds that supplying the parameter switches to single-symbol inspection, but this is a minor addition over the schema's existing coverage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('exchange symbols') and two clear behaviors: listing all symbols or inspecting one exact symbol with its trading constraints. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling market-data tools like xrocket_market_candles or xrocket_market_tickers.

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 implies the two usage modes based on whether the optional `symbol` parameter is provided, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as xrocket_asset_info or xrocket_market_tickers. The usage is clear enough for a simple read tool, but alternatives are not addressed.

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