list_futures_contracts

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it's 'paginated,' which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'paginated' specifically entails (e.g., cursor-based, page numbers).

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's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool and front-loads the key information ('Get a paginated list of futures contracts').

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 the complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and pagination behavior, but lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description mentions 'paginated' which hints at the 'limit' parameter, but doesn't explain any other parameters like 'product_code', 'first_trade_date', or 'as_of', leaving most semantics undocumented.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of futures contracts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_futures_products' or 'get_futures_contract_details', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this list operation.

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. With siblings like 'list_futures_products' and 'get_futures_contract_details', there's no indication whether this is for broad listing, filtered queries, or how it relates to other futures-related tools.

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