get_book_summary_by_currency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a read-only 'get' operation, confirms the scope ('all instruments of a currency'), and discloses the response contents (volume, open interest, bid/ask, mark price). It does not mention potential response size or rate-limit implications.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation, scope, and output fields; the second adds the primary use case. Every part earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description helps by naming the returned fields and the market-wide scope. The required currency parameter and optional kind filter are covered by the schema. It could be more specific about the exact result shape or large payload handling, but it is adequate for a summary scan tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly with enums and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the output fields, which does not go beyond the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('summary info ... for all instruments of a currency'), and explicitly lists the returned data fields. The 'all instruments of a currency' scope distinguishes it from single-instrument tools like get_ticker and get_order_book.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'scanning the entire options or futures market at a glance.' It implies this is a market-wide summary tool rather than a single-instrument lookup, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 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.