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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. The description lacks details on what 'trading rules' entail beyond the listed examples, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get trading rules for a symbol') and provides illustrative examples. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it lacks depth for a tool that might involve financial data retrieval. It meets basic needs but could benefit from more context on usage and behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented as 'Trading pair, e.g. 'BTCUSDT''. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 purpose: 'Get trading rules for a symbol' with specific examples like 'tick size, lot size, min notional, max leverage, etc.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trading rules for a symbol'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker' or 'get_order_book', which might also provide symbol-related information but for different data types.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. For example, it does not clarify if this is for pre-trade checks or general information retrieval, nor does it reference sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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