list_exchanges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, authentication needs, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more context would be beneficial.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, action verb first, and all essential information is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It could mention that the output is a list of exchange identifiers, but the output schema likely covers that. Minimal but sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'asset_class' is fully described with default and allowed values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (exchanges) with scope (for an asset class). The name 'list_exchanges' is reinforced, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tickers' or 'list_ticker_types' by focusing on exchanges.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (mostly getters for specific data) implies usage when needing available exchanges for a given asset class, but no further clarification is given.

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