get_symbols

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive operations, the description warns about 'large response' and 'costs 2 weight,' which are important performance and resource considerations that aren't captured in the structured 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance and warnings. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 that this is a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns (400+ symbols with bid/ask), performance considerations (large response, weight cost), and when to use alternatives. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the response format, but this is reasonable given the annotations already indicate it's a read operation.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics in a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all 400+ tradeable symbols') and resources ('symbols with bid/ask'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_symbol' which retrieves a single instrument. This provides immediate clarity about what the tool does.

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 provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool ('List all 400+ tradeable symbols') and when to use an alternative ('Prefer get_symbol for a single instrument'). This helps the agent choose between this bulk retrieval tool and its more targeted sibling.

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