get_instruments_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds little beyond parameter context. It does not contradict annotations and is consistent, but does not enrich behavioral understanding further.

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 a short docstring: a one-line purpose followed by a terse Args list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text, earning a 4.

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 6 parameters (1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers each parameter's meaning and purpose. It lacks mention of pagination behavior (cursor/limit) but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter and its semantics (e.g., category: 'Product type - spot, linear, inverse, option'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though enum values are not formalized.

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 'Query instrument specifications and trading rules', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tickers or get_orderbook, but does not explicitly differentiate, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 lists parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., category as product type), implying required context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tickers or get_coin_info.

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