getAccountInstruments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: a rate limit of 10 req/s, response structure differences between spot and linear/inverse, and the fact that spot does not support pagination. This meaningfully informs how an agent should invoke and interpret the tool.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a short return summary, a rate limit, and a practical agent hint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description reasonably summarizes the return contents (contract details, leverage, price, lot size filters) and explicitly warns that the response structure differs by category. It covers rate limits, required parameters, and pagination. The main gap is the lack of detail on exactly how the response structure varies, but this is acceptable for a query tool.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining that category is required and by telling the agent to use symbol to filter for linear/inverse contracts. It also clarifies pagination behavior for spot. However, it does not explicitly explain the meaning or usage of limit and cursor beyond the schema's own defaults and constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query tradable instrument specifications for the user's account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from market-wide siblings by emphasizing account-specific instruments and trading rules, and it names the supported contract categories (spot, linear, inverse).

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 Agent hint explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to get trading rules before placing orders.' It also gives parameter guidance, such as requiring category and using symbol to filter for linear/inverse. It does not name any alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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