Search contracts

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does: returns up to 20 results, exposes id/tickSize/tickValue/activeContract, and specifies tickValue units. No contradiction with 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 dense sentences with no fluff. The core search behavior and examples come first, followed by the result cap, fields, and a practical trading note. 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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only search tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it explains how to search, what is returned, the result limit, and which returned contract is actionable. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is only 50% because searchText lacks a description, but the description compensates by explaining searchText through examples. The live parameter is already described in the schema. Together, both parameters receive enough meaning for correct 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: 'Find tradable contracts by text'. It gives concrete examples (MNQ, ES, CL) and describes the result fields, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_available_contracts and get_contract.

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 intended use case is clear: search for contracts by text symbol. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives such as list_available_contracts or get_contract, nor does it say when not to use this tool. Some guidance is implied by the 'Trade the activeContract=true front month' note, but exclusions are absent.

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