get_symbol_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about meta.freshness indicating the staleness of exchangeInfo, and it implies a read-only query by describing returned data. However, it doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only, discuss error cases, or mention potential network calls, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with specific details. It front-loads the core purpose and includes useful filter names and freshness metadata without wasted words.

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 single-symbol info tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return contents (filters and status) and the freshness meta field. It does not mention that results are limited to the provided symbol or any error behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and strong parameter description for the required field.

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 only 33% (symbol described as 'Spot USDT çifti, örn. BTCUSDT'). The tool description adds no parameter explanation—it lists output filters but does not map them to parameters. request_id and idempotency_key are left undocumented by both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool returns Binance exchangeInfo filters (LOT_SIZE, MIN_NOTIONAL, PRICE_FILTER) and symbol status. The verb 'döner' (returns) plus specific resource and filter types make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by naming exact output components.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker or get_market_structure. It implies use for exchange filter retrieval but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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