get_spot_pairs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact count (294 pairs) and the symbol format (dashed canonical, e.g., 'HYPE-USDC'), which are beyond annotation scope.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and metadata fields, then adding count and usage hint. Every sentence is concise and informative.

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 zero parameters, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect.

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 input schema has no parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description lists the metadata fields returned (base/quote asset, wire symbol, etc.), adding context about the output without needing parameter details.

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 it lists all Hyperliquid Spot pairs with specific metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_instruments or get_spot_pair. It also explicitly says to use it to discover valid symbols before querying other spot tools.

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 advises using this tool to discover valid spot pair symbols before other spot tools, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient.

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