list_exchanges

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description adds valuable context: returns specific JSON structure and shares a rate limit pool. No contradictions, and it discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence states purpose, second gives return format in a code block, third mentions rate limit. No unnecessary words.

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?

Return format is specified, parameters are fully covered, and rate limit is mentioned. While an explicit output schema is not provided, the description gives enough detail. Tool is simple, so completeness is high.

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 100%, so the existing schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning for the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 'List exchanges (id and description) for resolving exchangeId values.' It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'exchanges', and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like search_instruments or list_instrument_types.

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?

Description explains when to use (to resolve exchangeId values) and mentions optional parameters for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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