Exchange Symbols

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

The annotations already mark this as a safe, read-only, open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by revealing that TEST* spot names and SETTLING futures statuses are hidden by default unless include_junk=True, and that output granularity changes when symbol is provided. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence adds unique information: scope, filtering behavior, venue values, symbol behavior, and an example. It is compact and front-loaded, though it leans toward telegraphic style and could be slightly better organized with labeled parameter sections.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to cover invocation details. It explains all parameters, default behaviors, and an example. The main gap is a lack of explicit routing versus sibling tools, but for correctly calling this tool, the provided context is nearly sufficient.

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 full burden of explaining parameters. It does this well: venue is constrained to {futures, spot, both}, symbol triggers single-symbol detail, and include_junk toggles junk filtering. The example further clarifies usage.

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 the resource ('Symbol universe') and the kind of data involved (filters, precisions, statuses, micro view), which makes the tool's aim clear. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings such as order_book or klines by focusing on symbol metadata, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not explicitly name sibling 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 implies when the tool is useful: fetching symbol metadata, with options for venue and single-symbol detail. It gives concrete examples and explains the include_junk flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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