symbol_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-mutating, read-only operation by using 'Get', and it lists what is returned. However, it does not mention possible failure states (e.g., if no symbol is currently set), error handling, or side effects. The behavior is mostly clear but not fully disclosed.

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 action and resource, with no filler or repetition. It earns every word.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is complete: it states what the tool does (get metadata) and what to expect (name, exchange, type, description). There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key return fields, making the tool's purpose and output clear.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter info needed in the description, and the schema already reflects that no input is required.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata about the current symbol'). It enumerates the included fields (name, exchange, type, description), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like symbol_search (which searches) and chart_set_symbol (which changes the chart's symbol).

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 context is implied: it is a read-only getter for the current symbol. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like symbol_search or chart_get_state, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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