futures_tickers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, return format, or any side effects (though it is likely read-only). The single sentence offers minimal behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and optional filter in a front-loaded manner. However, it could be slightly more structured to include usage tips, but length is ideal.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks any mention of result format or behavior details that would be needed to fully utilize the tool, so it is only minimally 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 coverage is 100% and the exchange parameter is already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'filtered by exchange' adds marginal value by confirming the filter is optional, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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?

Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (futures tickers), with an optional exchange filter. It is specific enough to distinguish from gainers/losers tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like futures_list_exchange which might also list tickers by exchange.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as futures_list_exchange or futures_prices. The description only gives the basic functionality, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases, which is especially needed given the many sibling tools.

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