get_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool returns live bid/ask data and should be used for pre-trade validation, which helps the agent understand its practical application and timing. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a detailed list of returned data and a clear usage guideline. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second enumerates specifics, and the third provides critical context. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description is quite complete: it details what data is returned and when to use it. However, it doesn't specify error conditions or response format, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on symbol naming conventions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get detailed spec') and resource ('one symbol'), listing the exact data returned (digits, contract size, volume min/max/step, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_symbols (plural) by focusing on a single symbol's details rather than listing all symbols.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call before trading to validate volume.' It also implies an alternative: use get_symbols for listing symbols rather than getting detailed specs for one. This provides clear context and distinguishes it from other trading-related siblings.

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