futures_list_exchange

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get unique exchange values', implying a read operation and a list output, but does not disclose details such as return format, sorting, possible empty results, or any error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap despite its simplicity.

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, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does in a compact manner, appropriate for its minimal complexity.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It conveys the purpose but does not describe the exact shape of the output (e.g., whether it returns an array of strings or objects). For a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail about the return type would enhance completeness. Still, it meets the minimum viable standard.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information about 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 'Get unique exchange values for futures' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it returns a list of distinct exchange identifiers for futures. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like futures_list_currency or indices_list_exchange by the 'futures' prefix and 'exchange' target.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for retrieving exchange values for futures, it does not state when to prefer it over related list tools (e.g., futures_list_currency, futures_list_timezone) or mention exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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