get_spread_instruments

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting that it is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens when parameters are omitted. This leaves significant uncertainty for the agent.

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 very short, which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices important details. The structure (one-line purpose then Args) is standard, but the content is insufficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should compensate with richer context. It does not explain what the returned info looks like, pagination, or error cases, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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's parameter notes (symbol as 'Spread symbol' and limit as 'Number of records') add some meaning beyond the schema. However, they are terse and lack details like format or behavior (e.g., what does an empty symbol return?).

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 'Get spread trading instruments info,' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling spread tools like get_spread_open_orders or get_spread_orderbook, though the name implies a general instrument lookup.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the parameter descriptions, which are minimal.

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