get_symbol_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific data fields returned, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as symbol validation behavior, rate limits, or state changes.

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 sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Trading rules for one symbol') and then lists the included fields. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It names the key returned information categories. It could have added how invalid symbols are handled or referenced a sibling for symbol discovery, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema description for the single parameter 'symbol' is thorough, covering format, ordering, case sensitivity, and normalization, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no param semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool returns trading rules for one symbol and enumerates the specific attributes (status, base/quote assets, precisions, tick size, lot step, minimum notional). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker or get_order_book by naming the resource and content.

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?

No statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Sibling tools exist (get_ticker, get_klines, get_order_book, search_symbols), but the description does not mention them or give exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and field list.

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