get_symbol_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns symbol metadata, implies a read-only operation, and adds the operational caution that values must not be sourced from memory. It does not describe error behavior or market_type effects, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, with the core return fields front-loaded and the usage caution in the second sentence. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 two-parameter metadata lookup it is largely self-contained, and the description names the key return fields despite no output schema. However, it omits any explanation of `market_type` and symbol-format expectations, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does not define the `symbol` format or the `market_type` default/possible values; only the phrase 'one symbol' appears. The listed return fields do not map to parameter meanings.

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?

States a specific action ('Exchange metadata for one symbol') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (precision, minimum trade size, minimum notional, enabled status). This clearly distinguishes it from price/ticker/depth siblings, which return market data rather than symbol configuration.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to call it 'before sizing any order' and cautions that precision and minimums 'come from here, never from memory.' This is a clear when-to-use directive, even though it does not name exclusion conditions or alternative tools.

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