get_future_by

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the shape of the returned info and notes that id format is auto-recognised, but says nothing about failure modes when a contract is not found or how multiple listings resolve.

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?

Front-loaded with a single summary sentence followed by a compact, well-structured Args block where each entry earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description steps in to name the key returned fields and documents all three parameters. It is adequately complete for a read-only lookup, missing only error/multi-listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: id is explained as accepting ticker/FIGI/ISIN/UID with automatic detection, id_type is scoped to the ticker case, and class_code is explained as the board selecting one listing. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though the phrasing of the id_type/class_code dependency is slightly muddled.

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 verb+resource ('Get detailed futures contract info') and names the returned fields (expiration, basic asset, margin requirements). This clearly distinguishes it from the bond/share/ETF lookups among its siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with list_futures or get_instrument_by.

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 tool-level when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to reach for get_future_by versus get_instrument_by, find_instrument, or list_futures. The only usage hints are parameter-level (id_type only needed with a ticker class_code), which is not the same as routing guidance.

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