symbol_info

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavior on its own. 'Get' signals a non-mutating read and the parenthetical names the data fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether an active chart or session is required or the shape and format of the returned metadata, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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?

A single sentence gets straight to the point: the verb, resorce, and returned fields are front-loaded with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 zero-parameter getter this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema the description should more explicitly describe the return value and any precondition such as an active chart with a selected symbol. The listed fields hint at the return payload but do not fully specify it.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context that the operation is scoped to the 'current symbol', which is the only relevant semantics; there are no parameter details needed.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Get' and identifies a specific resource, the current symbol's metadata, while listing the fields returned. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as symbol_search or quote_get, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'current symbol' implies the tool should be used when a symbol is already loaded or selected, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like symbol_search or quote_get. The usage context is therefore only implied, not stated.

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