get_ibkr_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear language, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or behavioral context, though the output schema might help with return values. This is a minimal viable level for a read operation with some structural support.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only hints at 'contract details or option chain metadata', which loosely relates to 'info_type' but doesn't explain any parameters like 'symbol', 'sec_type', 'exchange', or 'currency'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'contract details or option chain metadata from IBKR', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_ibkr_market_data' or 'get_ibkr_option_prices', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'get_ibkr_market_data' and 'get_ibkr_option_prices', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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