List a venue's instruments

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the required market:read scope, a 60 req/hour rate limit shared across the whole venue-public tool group, and the fact that the response is an hour-cached copy worth keeping rather than polling.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns and why it matters, then scope, then limits. Slightly redundant ('60 requests per hour' restated as 'Sixty an hour'), but every sentence carries usable 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still conveys what comes back (symbols plus tick/lot rules), the auth requirement, and the rate ceiling — the pieces an agent needs to plan a call. Only field-level return detail is absent, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter list tool.

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 single venue parameter already has 100% schema description coverage and a full enum, so the schema does the work. The description adds domain framing (venue id, tick/lot rules) but no extra syntax or value guidance for the parameter itself, which is the baseline-3 situation.

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?

States a specific resource (every symbol a venue lists) plus its distinguishing payload (tick and lot rules), and the venue parameter frames scope. An agent can distinguish it from list_venues or get_ticker without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('read this before placing an order, because a price or quantity off the venue's grid is refused') and names an alternative path for a different need ('For prices more often than this, read the venue's own public API'). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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