list_futures_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'paginated list,' which hints at output behavior, but fails to describe critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'paginated' entails (e.g., page size, token). This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and output format, which are essential for effective tool invocation. The mention of 'paginated' is a minimal start but insufficient for full 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%, meaning all 9 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the tool name—it does not explain what parameters like 'active,' 'as_of,' or 'product_code' do, nor their expected formats. This leaves parameters entirely unexplained.

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 'Get[s] a paginated list of futures contracts,' which clearly identifies the verb ('get') and resource ('futures contracts'). However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all contracts or filtered) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'list_futures_products' or 'get_futures_contract_details,' making it vague in context.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many sibling tools.

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