get_futures_contract_details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the temporal constraint ('at a specified point in time') which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'details' entail. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but minimal behavioral depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get details for a single futures contract') and adds necessary qualification ('at a specified point in time'). Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, it's minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks depth on parameters, alternatives, and behavioral nuances.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the 'as_of' parameter via 'at a specified point in time', but doesn't explain 'ticker' format, 'params' usage, or default behaviors. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving most parameter meanings unclear.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details for a single futures contract' with the temporal scope 'at a specified point in time'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_futures_product_details' (product-level) and 'get_futures_snapshot' (snapshot vs details), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_futures_snapshot' or 'get_ticker_details'. It mentions a 'specified point in time' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for selection.

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