Get Exchange Metadata

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses two non-obvious operational traits: data refreshes every 10 minutes and a strict rate limit of 1 request per 30 seconds. It also reveals the relationship between exchange IDs and instrument workingScheduleId, which is useful for downstream usage.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what is returned, how IDs relate to instruments, and operational constraints. Front-loaded with the primary action and resource, no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the data content, the key field mapping, data freshness, and rate limiting. It is complete and actionable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than parameters, and since no parameters exist, there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('all accessible exchanges') with a clear scope. It further explains the data includes working schedules and the mapping to workingScheduleId, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instruments.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to get exchange metadata and link to instruments) and provides operational constraints (data refresh every 10 minutes, rate limit 1 req/30s). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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