dzengi_list_instruments

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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it guarantees bounded local pagination and explicitly warns against unbounded exchangeInfo payloads. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a performance/response-size guarantee.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. Every word earns its place: 'Read exchange instruments' states the purpose, 'bounded local pagination' states the mechanism, and the warning clause prevents misuse. No filler or redundancy.

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-only paginated list with two self-explanatory parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return shape or whether the response includes total counts, but with no output schema and a simple list tool, the bounded-pagination warning is the most important context and it is present.

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 burden for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain 'limit' or 'offset' semantics beyond what the schema's names and numeric bounds already imply. The pagination mention in the description loosely maps to offset/limit, but it adds no detail about defaults, ordering, or how pagination behaves. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema provides bounds.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('exchange instruments'), and adds a scoping constraint ('bounded local pagination'). It distinguishes itself from the broader exchangeInfo payload concern, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 context: it is a read-only paginated listing tool, and the warning about never returning an unbounded exchangeInfo payload suggests when to use it (when a bounded list is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like dzengi_list_positions or dzengi_get_ticker, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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