get_instruments

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 discloses that the tool returns instrument names, strike prices, expiration dates, and contract details and implies a read-only listing. However, it doesn't mention default behavior like exclusion of expired instruments, the existence of combo instrument types, or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the first states action and scope, the second lists return contents, and the third provides a usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool, covering scope and return content. But it omits combo instrument types from the parenthetical even though the enum includes future_combo and option_combo, and it fails to distinguish this from specialized siblings like get_options_chain, which could lead to tool mis-selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'options, futures, spots' and 'currency,' but these merely mirror the enum values and the required currency parameter. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and scope: 'List tradable instruments (options, futures, spots) for a currency.' It also names return contents (instrument names, strike prices, expiration dates, contract details), which makes the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_options_chain or get_expirations.

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 says 'Essential for discovering available options chains,' implying a key use case. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this instead of get_options_chain or other sibling tools, and it doesn't mention 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.