ccxt_describe_exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the content of the inspection (methods, market types, timeframes, etc.) and the rationale (safe routing), without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the key outputs. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, with no wasted words.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and why. It could be slightly more detailed about the return format or the requirement for at least one of exchange/account, but the schema covers the latter, and the overall context is sufficient.

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%, with all four parameters described. The description adds only a hint that 'exchange' or 'account' are alternative targets, but does not provide extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource (CCXT exchange or configured account). It enumerates exactly what is returned (supported methods, market types, timeframes, symbols, invocation modes) and the purpose (safe request routing), distinguishing it from sibling call tools like ccxt_public_call and ccxt_private_write.

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 phrase 'so callers can route requests safely' clearly implies this tool should be used before making other CCXT calls to discover capabilities. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., ccxt_list_exchanges) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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