xRocket symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by explaining the optional symbol parameter changes the operation from a full list to a single-symbol inspection, which is valuable for invocation expectations.

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 entire description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's main purpose and directly followed by the secondary behavior. Every phrase earns its place and there is no wasted wording.

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 single optional parameter, full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description covers both invocation modes and the tool's core purpose. There is no significant gap that would prevent an agent from selecting and calling this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides a clear description for the symbol parameter, including a concrete example, so coverage is 100%. The description adds some context by implying the parameter is optional and selects between listing all or inspecting one, but it does not provide technical detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 specifies a precise action—listing all exchange symbols or inspecting one exact symbol—and ties it to trading constraints, making its scope clear and distinct from price-oriented siblings like xrocket_market_tickers or orderbook. It communicates not just the resource but the dual-mode behavior.

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 implies clearly when to use the tool: to list all symbols when no symbol is supplied, or to inspect a specific symbol and its constraints when one is supplied. It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the context strongly signals its role in symbol lookup rather than market data.

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