Get Instrument Details

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal additional behavioral context (e.g., it mentions 'metadata' but does not describe rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling). Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description provides adequate but not enriched transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the essential action and key inputs.

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 has four parameters (including optional ones) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what fields the 'detailed metadata' includes, the role of 'accountKey' and 'fieldGroups', or how the tool differs from similar data-fetching siblings. The description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains 'Uic + AssetType'. It does not clarify the meaning of 'accountKey' or 'fieldGroups', which are optional parameters that could significantly affect the tool's behavior. This omission leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of the 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('detailed metadata for instruments'), and the key parameters ('by Uic + AssetType'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like saxo_get_infoprice (which retrieves price data) by specifying metadata as the output.

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 versus alternatives such as saxo_search_instruments or saxo_get_infoprice. The description does not mention that this tool is for metadata retrieval or that it requires precise identifiers, leaving the agent without clear context for tool selection.

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