get_available_symbols

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool is free ('no x402 payment required'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like data freshness or rate limits. Given annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with purpose, then specifics about exchanges, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers the essential: what it returns (symbols from specific exchanges) and why to use it. It could mention that the list may change, but for a read-only free tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly omits parameter details, as there are none. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'available trading symbols on Korean exchanges', specifying Upbit, Bithumb, and common symbols. This distinctly defines its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_kr_prices or get_kimchi_premium.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check which symbols you can query before calling other tools', providing clear context for when to use it. It could improve by mentioning when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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