dzengi_get_trading_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond 'public', implying no auth, but doesn't disclose behavior like default return scope (e.g., all limits when no symbol given) or any response format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal extra context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the optional filter with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't describe what the response contains (e.g., a list of limits, a single object) or clarify what 'trading limits' refers to. This could leave an agent uncertain about the return value, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'symbol' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the symbol is optional and used for filtering, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type/maxLength. However, it doesn't specify the expected symbol format or what happens when omitted, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'public broker trading limits', making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trading fees or leverage settings by its specific subject matter, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like dzengi_get_trading_fees or dzengi_get_leverage_settings. It only states its function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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