instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output contents ('snapshot', list of data types) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, potential errors, or the fact that it's a read-only operation. The term 'snapshot' implies a static point-in-time view, but this is implicit and not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise with no redundant wording, and the data categories are presented in an easy-to-scan list.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides an outline of the return content (six categories) which helps set expectations. However, it lacks details on return structure, possible errors, or usage prerequisites. It is adequate for understanding the tool's scope but leaves gaps for a comprehensive context.

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% and the description does not mention the instrument_id parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's own type and required flag. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 indicates the tool provides a comprehensive snapshot of an instrument, listing specific data categories (identity, quote, trading status, historical returns, key ratios, NNX metadata). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like quote or stock_profile, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 word 'full' implies the tool is appropriate when comprehensive instrument data is needed, and the listed categories suggest when it might be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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