get_future_forward_info

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful but thin behavioral caveat: data may not be real-time. It does not disclose anything further about data freshness, authorization, or response behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the important freshness caveat is appended compactly without 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only getter with a rich schema and an available output schema, this description is largely complete. The main gap is not naming alternatives for real-time data or distinguishing from the closely related get_future_forward_details, but that is more of a usage concern.

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%, and the order_book_id parameter is already well explained in the schema, including the clarification that it is not the separate instrumentId. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource: contract identity and latest available market data. It is unambiguous about what is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from get_future_forward_details, relying mainly on tool naming for differentiation.

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 caveat 'not guaranteed real-time' implies when this tool is not suitable, and the phrasing suggests it is for retrieving identity plus a market snapshot. But it names no alternative for real-time data and gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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