get_instrument

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds what the tool returns (trading status, fractional trading, option capabilities) but does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or data freshness. It adds some context beyond annotations.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, return summary, then arguments. Every sentence adds value without fluff. Slight improvement possible by integrating argument explanations more seamlessly, but overall effective.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the tool's purpose, key arguments, and what categories of data are returned. It is adequate for a simple getter tool, though it lacks mention of possible error cases or limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining symbol as "Ticker symbol (e.g. "AAPL")" and instrument_type as "One of EQUITY, CRYPTO, OPTION, INDEX, ALT, BOND, TREASURY. Default is EQUITY." This adds examples and enum values that the schema alone does not provide.

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 details about a specific tradeable instrument" with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling get_all_instruments by specifying "specific" and listing returned fields like trading status and option capabilities.

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 need details on one instrument but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_all_instruments or get_option_chain. There is no when-not or exclusion guidance.

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