list_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful details beyond the schema, such as 'quote' filtering by quote currency and 'search' being a case-insensitive substring match. However, it omits behavior about the 'limit' parameter, 'exchange' null handling, pagination, or result ordering, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a usage tip, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action, uses bullet-like formatting for filters, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool is relatively simple with an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks coverage of 'limit' and 'exchange' semantics, and does not address potential ambiguities like what happens when 'exchange' is null. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for a fully informed invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains only two of four parameters ('quote' and 'search') with concrete examples. 'limit' and 'exchange' are left entirely to the schema, which only provides names and types—no semantic guidance. This incompleteness fails to fully compensate for the zero 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's function: 'List tradable symbols on an exchange, optionally filtered.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_exchanges or get_watched_symbols. The added note about discovering valid symbols before other calls reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to discover valid symbols before other calls,' which provides clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before other calls' phrasing implies it is a prerequisite rather than a replacement for other data-fetching tools.

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