getInstrumentsInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication required, response schema varies by category, and pagination is cursor-based via nextPageCursor. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded and uses useful bullets, but it is repetitive: the response-schema-differs note, pagination support, and the 'do not use for real-time prices' guidance each appear twice. A tighter version would retain the same value with less duplication.

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 7-parameter discovery endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, category-sensitive responses, pagination behavior, authentication requirement, and even exotic symbolType mappings. It does not exhaustively document every response field, but it names the key order-validation fields and points to schema definitions for category-specific details.

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 compensates well: it maps categories to market types, explains the cursor pagination parameter, and gives explicit symbolType examples for TradFi discovery. Some parameters like limit, baseCoin, and status are left to their names and enums, but the critical selection parameters are explained effectively.

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 ('Query') and resource ('instrument specifications for active trading pairs'), enumerates the covered market types and data fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from getTickers. This makes the tool's role unambiguous and separates it clearly from siblings.

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 lists concrete use cases such as discovering pairs, validating orders with tickSize/minOrderQty/maxOrderQty, checking leverage ranges, and obtaining deliveryTime. It also explicitly says not to use this endpoint for real-time prices and names getTickers as the alternative, giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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