get_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'Gets', but does not state what metadata is included, whether it is safe/read-only, what happens if the symbolId is invalid, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is minimally informative but not misleading.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. It loses a point only because it could have used its brevity wisely to add a bit more useful context.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, so the description is minimally viable for an agent to attempt a call. However, with no output schema and no mention of return value shape, success/error conditions, or relation to sibling tools, an agent has incomplete context for interpreting results or planning multi-step workflows.

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 adds little beyond the schema. It confirms symbolId refers to a cTrader symbol or instrument, but it does not explain the expected format, source, or valid values for symbolId, so the agent gets weak parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('detailed metadata for a specific cTrader symbol or instrument'), so an agent knows this is a retrieval operation for a single symbol. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_market_data or list_symbols, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_symbols or get_market_data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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