ultrade_market_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or any other behavioral aspects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Get market symbols')—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'market symbols' entail, the return format, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to compensate for, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 'Get market symbols' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('market symbols'), but it's vague about what 'market symbols' are (e.g., trading pairs, asset codes) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'ultrade_market_markets' or 'ultrade_market_assets', which might overlap in purpose. It avoids tautology by not just repeating the name, but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'ultrade_market_markets', 'ultrade_market_assets'), the description doesn't indicate if this is for a specific type of symbol, context, or use case, leaving the agent to guess without any explicit or implied direction.

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