get_instruments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool lists tradeable instruments and valid exchanges, but no further behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or response structure are provided. This is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise with two sentences and a list, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function without verbosity.

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 (2 params, 1 required) and existing output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on error handling, the meaning of the search parameter, or potential limitations, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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. It adds meaning for the 'exchange' parameter by listing valid values ('NSE, BSE, NFO, BFO, CDS, MCX'), but the 'search' parameter is left completely undocumented. This partial coverage earns a middle score.

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's purpose: 'Get list of tradeable instruments for an exchange' and its use case 'to find instrument_token for historical data.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_historical_data or get_quote.

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?

It specifies when to use the tool: 'Use to find instrument_token for historical data.' While it provides context, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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