get_derivatives_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live snapshot' hints that the result is point-in-time and read-only, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the data is cached, which is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately short but arguably under-specified rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a read tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage on three parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified: no filtering semantics, no pagination behavior, and no differentiation from the other board tools.

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 description says nothing about the three parameters (limit, offset, symbol). It does not explain that symbol filters the board or that limit/offset paginate, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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?

States a specific resource (derivatives contracts) and the operation type (live snapshot), and names the data source (cdn.ime.co.ir marketshub). This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like get_physical_board and get_financial_board by naming the asset class, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 mention of alternatives such as get_financial_board or get_physical_board, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the derivatives-specific board.

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