get_futures_contract_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded with the essential information.

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 complexity of a financial data tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to interpret results, or provide necessary operational context for proper tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (ticker, as_of, params), the description provides minimal parameter context. It mentions 'at a specified point in time' which hints at the 'as_of' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'ticker' format, what 'params' might contain, or provide any examples. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the complete 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 states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('for a single futures contract'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_futures_product_details' by focusing on contracts rather than products, but doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other contract-related tools like 'list_futures_contracts'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for single contract details (versus listing multiple contracts), it doesn't explicitly state this distinction or mention other contract-related tools like 'get_futures_snapshot' or 'list_futures_contracts' as alternatives.

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