getAccountInstruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limits, category-specific differences, and return contents. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (implied), nor does it mention authentication requirements or error handling scenarios. Slight room for improvement.

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 concise, with about five sentences that front-load the main purpose and progressively add details. There is no redundancy; every sentence adds value (purpose, supported types, return fields, rate limit, usage hints, category differences).

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, parameter roles, category-specific behavior, and a usage hint. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating output structure differences (e.g., arrays vs objects), but the given details are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains that category is required, symbol filters for linear/inverse, and that limit/cursor (pagination) are not supported for spot. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: querying tradable instrument specifications for the user's account. It explicitly lists supported contract types (spot, linear, inverse) and return fields (contract details, leverage, price, lot size filters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'getInstrumentsInfo' or 'getTickers'.

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 provides explicit guidance: use before placing orders, required parameter (category), filtering by symbol for linear/inverse, and important behavioral notes (response structure differs by category, spot lacks pagination). The rate limit (10 req/s) and agent hint further aid correct invocation.

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