validate_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 implies a read-only operation (validate, return price) but does not explicitly state that it is safe, whether it errors on invalid symbols, or if any side effects exist. The return fields are listed but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action and output. It earns its place but could have included a brief note on alternatives or valid symbol formats without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate information about what is returned. However, it lacks contextual guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools, and it does not address potential failure modes or performance implications.

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 only parameter 'symbol' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not add meaning beyond the word 'symbol'. It does not clarify accepted formats, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic guidance for a parameter that is critical to the operation.

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 states the tool validates a symbol and returns live price, class, multiplier, and margin. This clearly indicates the primary purpose and distinguishes it from simple quote tools by including validation and additional metadata. However, the exact meaning of 'validate' is not expanded.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_search or market_latest_quote. The description does not state any scenarios, prerequisites, or behavioral exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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