getSpreadInstrumentsInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns a paginated list, uses cursor-based pagination with nextPageCursor, may have latency during high volatility, and requires no authentication. This gives an agent a realistic expectation of behavior when calling 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 with bullets, bolded warnings, and notes, and it front-loads the core purpose. However, it is repetitive: the 'do not use for real-time prices' guidance and pagination instructions appear in both the main body and the 'Agent hint' section, adding unnecessary length without new information.

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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential operational context: what the response contains, pagination mechanics, latency behavior, authentication needs, and the sibling alternative for prices. The main remaining gap is the lack of semantic detail for filter parameters like symbol and baseCoin, but the overall guidance is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only explains the cursor parameter ('pass the nextPageCursor value into the cursor parameter'). The limit, symbol, and baseCoin parameters are not described at all, though the description mentions 'spread symbols' in a general sense. This is a clear gap for a tool with four undocumented optional parameters.

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 identifies the resource as 'instrument specifications for spread combination trading pairs' and lists the concrete fields returned (contract type, trading status, tick size, quantity limits, component legs). It distinguishes itself from the generic getInstrumentsInfo sibling by emphasizing 'spread' instruments, and explicitly contrasts with getSpreadTickers for real-time prices.

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 usage scenarios: discovering available spread symbols, validating tickSize/minSize/maxSize before order construction, and retrieving component legs. It also gives a clear exclusion rule: 'Do not use this endpoint for real-time price data — use getSpreadTickers instead,' making the decision boundary between siblings explicit.

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