list_dual_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does add a useful behavioral detail: the quote convention for BTC/ETH pairs. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication, but for a list endpoint this is less critical. The provided detail is valuable but not comprehensive.

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 concise—two sentences that are easy to parse. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a necessary caveat. While the first sentence is a fragment, it remains efficient and scannable.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with an optional parameter; it never explains what 'base' controls or how results behave when it's omitted. It also doesn't indicate the return format. The quote convention note is helpful but addresses only a narrow aspect, leaving the agent underinformed.

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's only parameter 'base' is undocumented (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. Since the schema provides no hints and the description offers no compensation, the agent is left guessing what 'base' does, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 returns 'Pairs supported by Dual Investment,' which indicates the resource and action. It doesn't explicitly use the verb 'list' but the meaning is unambiguous. It doesn't name sibling tools but the context of Dual Investment differentiates it from other list tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_dual_products or get_dual_prices. The note about quote conventions is a usage tip but not about tool selection. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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