filter_etfs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context beyond that: server-side pagination, dynamic upstream-defined filter vocabulary, and the hint that results contain orderbookId. 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and pagination are front-loaded, followed by the critical operational hint and routing to get_etf_info. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 11 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It lacks per-parameter semantics and pagination/sort details. Although the output schema exists and annotations help, the filter parameter meanings are left largely ambiguous, making autonomous invocation risky.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives generic guidance to inspect filterOptions for filter values, but doesn't explain pagination parameters (limit, offset), sort parameters (sort_field, sort_order), or the specific meaning of filter fields like issuers, exposures, directions, etc. This is significant under-compensation for 11 parameters.

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 verb ('Select'), resource ('ETFs'), and mechanism ('by upstream filters, with server-side pagination'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling filter tools for other instrument types (filter_certificates, filter_warrants) and points to get_etf_info as the follow-up step.

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?

Provides useful usage context: inspect returned filterOptions rather than guessing labels, and use get_etf_info for a selected orderbookId. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with filter_certificates/filter_warrants or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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