futures_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool lists supported symbols with specific fields, which is fully transparent for a read-only listing operation. While it does not explicitly say 'read-only', the verb 'List' conveys the non-mutating nature. No side effects or additional behavior need disclosure for such a simple tool.

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, complete sentence that directly states the purpose and output without any filler or repetition. Every word adds value, making it exceptionally concise.

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, parameterless listing tool, the description fully covers the necessary context. It specifies what the tool returns (symbols, multiplier, initial margin), and an output schema exists to define return structure, so no further explanation is required. Sibling tools do not overlap, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return content rather than parameter details. No compensation is needed.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'supported futures symbols' and adds details about the included fields (contract multiplier and initial margin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_search or validate_symbol, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (when needing a list of futures symbols with contract specifications) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It lacks any 'use this instead of X' or context about when not to use it.

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