get_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies the returned fields, making the behavior clear. However, it omits details like pagination or whether the list is dynamic, which are minor for a simple listing tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes key output details. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides the essential information: it lists all instruments and highlights two important fields. It could be more complete by mentioning all returned fields (e.g., instrument ID, symbol), but it is sufficient for a basic list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema properties are empty. Descriptions baseline is 4 for no parameters; the description adds context about the response content, which is sufficient.

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 action ('List all available trading instruments') and the specific data returned ('tick sizes and min order sizes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_portfolios, which cover different resources.

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 a list of all trading instruments with their tick sizes and min order sizes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's name and description make its purpose unambiguous among the listed siblings.

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