mb_get_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default BRL filter, page size, and that the 'symbols' filter overrides pagination. It does not cover auth, errors, or exact response structure, but the key behaviors of a read-only list tool are disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives default behavior and scale. No redundant or wordy content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the metadata fields and clarifying pagination/filtering. It does not provide a precise return structure or error conditions, but it is adequate for a straightforward list endpoint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context (e.g., 'Use symbols for specific pairs or offset to paginate') but does not materially expand on the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('available trading symbols/pairs on Mercado Bitcoin') while also naming returned metadata fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mb_get_tickers, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It clearly states the default behavior (BRL-only pairs, pages of 200) and provides direct guidance on when to use 'symbols' or 'offset'. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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