list_available_contractsDiscover all tradeable futures contracts in one place. Use this to browse the full market list, or switch to search_contracts when you already know the exact symbol for faster results.
List every contract available to trade. Large output; prefer search_contracts when you know the symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| live | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a useful operational detail: 'Large output' warns about performance/response size. It also implies an exhaustive listing behavior, which goes beyond the structured 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the alternative-tool guidance is delivered efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple and low-complexity, but the 'live' parameter is unexplained and there is no output schema. The description gives enough to understand the basic purpose, but an agent cannot confidently know how the live flag changes results or what exactly the large output will contain.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'live' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning and effect ambiguous. The schema only provides type/default, which is insufficient for confident invocation.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List every contract available to trade.' It clearly distinguishes itself from search_contracts by emphasizing exhaustive scope ('every contract') versus a targeted lookup, so an agent can tell tools apart.
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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'prefer search_contracts when you know the symbol.' It also implies this tool is for broad exploration, not targeted lookups, which is exactly the guidance needed for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.