instruments_by_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Gets detailed instrument metadata,' with no disclosure of side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or response characteristics. This limited disclosure makes it insufficient for agents to understand behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the tool's function plus a brief parameter docstring. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple input (1 required param) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'detailed instrument metadata' entails or any limitations (e.g., max symbols). More context could help, but it is functionally complete for basic use.

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 schema (0% description coverage) defines 'symbols' as an array of strings without further detail. The description adds value by specifying 'List of stock ticker symbols' and providing an example (['AAPL', 'GOOGL', 'MSFT']), which clarifies the nature and expected format of the 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 'Gets detailed instrument metadata for multiple symbols,' using a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('instrument metadata') with scope ('multiple symbols'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_instruments' (search-based) or 'stock_info' (single 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 description implies usage when you have known stock symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks direct guidance.

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