Surf Exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds context about real-time data and available data types (tickers, order books, funding rates), which is valuable. However, it doesn't discuss rate limits, pagination, or authentication, but given the annotations, this is not a major gap.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement and then provides a structured, scannable list of commands with their parameters. While the list is long, it is efficient and each line serves a purpose; no redundant text.

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?

This is a multi-command tool with many parameters and no output schema. The description lists all commands with brief descriptions and parameter details, which is sufficient for an agent to select and call the right command. It doesn't fully explain return formats, but the command names are self-explanatory and no output schema is expected.

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 input schema only defines a 'command' enum and an opaque 'params' object with no properties. The description compensates fully by listing each command's parameters with types and enums (e.g., exchange, interval, limit), providing essential information the schema omits.

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 begins with 'Use this when the user needs exchange data from Surf' and then details specific data types (ticker prices, order book, OHLCV, funding rates) available from major exchanges. This clearly specifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on DEX, prediction markets, etc.

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 gives a clear context: 'Use this when the user needs exchange data from Surf' and lists exchange names, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use other Surf tools like surf_dex. Thus it has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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