get_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and that it lists all supported exchanges/pairs. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances. For a simple list endpoint, this is minimal but adequate.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences, no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides the key behavioral detail about authentication.

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?

Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool. It explains what it returns and the auth requirement. Slightly more context (e.g., read-only implication) could be added, but it is not strictly necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids mentioning nonexistent parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported exchanges and trading pairs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on trades, orderbooks, or OHLCV data. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 to use this tool (when you need to know supported exchanges/trading pairs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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