getInstrumentsInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states no authentication required, response schema differs per category, supports cursor-based pagination, and clarifies it is a read-only operation for specifications. This is comprehensive for a non-destructive query 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 with bullet points and bold headings, making key information scannable. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it repeats 'Response schema differs per category' and could trim some redundancy. Overall, it is efficient but slightly verbose.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides substantial context: use cases, parameter hints, pagination, and alternatives. It does not fully describe the output structure, but mentions key fields like tickSize, minOrderQty, which partially compensates. It is adequate for an agent to use 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the category parameter and its enum values by linking to market types. It clarifies the cursor parameter for pagination, the symbolType for TradFi tokens, and implies use of symbol, status, etc. However, it does not directly describe every parameter (e.g., baseCoin, limit), though their use is implied contextually.

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 explicitly states the tool queries instrument specifications for active trading pairs across multiple market types, listing specific use cases like retrieving tickSize, minOrderQty, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as getTickers by stating it is not for real-time prices. The verb 'Query instrument specifications' is specific and resource-oriented.

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 when-to-use scenarios (e.g., discover available pairs, validate orders) and when-not-to-use (not for real-time prices, suggesting getTickers instead). It includes an agent hint for TradFi discovery with symbol type guidance and pagination usage. This clearly guides the agent on appropriate invocation.

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