get_instruments

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

The description uses the verb 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, no destructive actions, or authorization requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

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 with a list of return fields, no fluff or repetition. It is concise and to the point.

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?

The description mentions returned fields but is ambiguous about behavior when the optional 'instId' parameter is omitted. It says 'Get available trading instruments' (plural) without clarifying if it returns a list of all instruments or only the one specified. No output schema is provided, so this ambiguity could lead to misuse.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'instId' with a description and example. The tool description does not add additional context beyond what the schema provides; thus it adds minimal value.

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 'Get available trading instruments' and specifies that it returns contract specifications such as min size, tick size, and leverage limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_positions which deal with different resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_tickers or get_candlesticks. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenario-specific usage.

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