list_exchanges

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return value (configured exchange ids and default exchange) but does not describe any side effects, permissions, or potential errors. Since this is a simple read-only list, the provided details are adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'List.' Every sentence contributes essential information without any fluff or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 (zero parameters, output schema provided), the description is largely complete. It states the output and a key behavioral detail about the default exchange. It does not discuss prerequisites or environmental context, but for a configuration listing, this is a minor gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and the reference to the 'exchange' argument is about other tools, not this one. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema shows (an empty schema).

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the exchanges this server is configured to use.' It distinguishes this from all sibling tools, which focus on market data and analysis, not configuration.

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 provides clear context about the tool's purpose and even explains the relevance of the default exchange for other tool calls. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are mostly unrelated, and the use case is self-evident.

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