get_symbol_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It partially discharges that by enumerating the returned payload (digits, spread, lot min/max/step, stops level, bid/ask), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about read-only nature, behavior on an invalid/unknown symbol, or whether bid/ask are live snapshots.

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 telegraphic sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. There is no explicit statement of what the tool does, only a list of field names.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, listing the return fields covers part of the gap. The omission of symbol format expectations and any mention of error behavior on unknown symbols leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently against this large sibling set.

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 0% and the sole parameter (symbol) is never addressed in the description. No format, casing, or broker-prefix convention is given, so the agent has no guidance on how to supply the required argument beyond the bare property name 'Symbol'.

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 names the resource (symbol) and enumerates the data it exposes (digits, spread, lot constraints, stops level, bid/ask), which makes the retrieval purpose inferable. However it is a noun-list fragment with no verb and nothing that separates it from siblings such as search_symbols or get_tick, so an agent must guess at the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like search_symbols (to find a symbol) or get_tick (for live pricing only). The agent is left to infer that this is the lookup for static symbol specifications.

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