getOptionBaseCoins

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

Annotations only indicate read-only and open-world, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: error codes (10001, 10006) with corrective actions, rate-limit advice, and semantics of hasSymbol and optionOnlineTime. It also explains that no authentication is needed. This goes far beyond the annotations.

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 a clear opening statement, bullet-point use cases, and notes. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, including the error code and agent hint sections.

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 fully explains what is returned (fields and their meaning) and how to interpret the data (hasSymbol, optionOnlineTime). It covers authentication, parameter usage, error handling, and provides an agent hint. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The input schema has no description (0% coverage), so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly defines underlyingType as optional and lists all valid values (0 for crypto, 1 for commodity, 2 for stock, 3 for forex, 4 for oil). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 retrieves option base coins from Bybit and enumerates the exact data fields returned (quote/settlement coins, display names, online times, symbol availability, underlying types). The verb 'Retrieve' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous, and it clearly differs from sibling tools focused on other product types (loans, earn, etc.).

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?

It provides explicit use cases: discovering underlyings, filtering by asset type, and checking tradable symbols. It notes the only supported query parameter, states authentication is not required, and gives an agent hint on how to filter. This fully informs when and how to use the tool.

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