get_contract_details

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'get,' implying read-only. It does not disclose potential errors, network calls, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., contract conditions, trading hours).

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 a single sentence, concise and free of fluff. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; slightly more detail would be beneficial.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return structure, parameter co-constraints (e.g., exchange and currency defaults), or any side effects.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to parameters like contract_type, symbol, exchange, or currency. The agent gains no understanding of how these fields affect the query.

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 'Get detailed contract information' clearly indicates the tool retrieves contract details, but it is generic and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_option_chain or qualify_contracts. A more specific description would improve clarity.

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 alternatives or any prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention that contract_type and symbol are required or when exchange or currency defaults apply.

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