list_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only listing operation and that metadata is returned, but it does not clarify what 'basic metadata' includes, whether results are paginated, or whether the list is scoped to a specific account or workspace.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids repeating the tool name or schema 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?

For a simple, no-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly adequate, but since there is no output schema, it should more precisely describe the returned metadata or indicate whether the list is account-scoped. The vagueness of 'basic metadata' leaves room for ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; the baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the resource ('available cTrader symbols or instruments') with a hint at the data returned ('basic metadata'). It is clear in intent but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_symbol or list_symbol_categories.

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 states only what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over alternatives. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus get_symbol for a single symbol or list_symbol_categories for categories, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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