fetch_whitelist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'Stringified JSON response with whitelist data, or None if failed', which adds some context about output format and failure handling. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool in a trading context.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief notes on parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return info into the main statement.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context about the trading environment, data freshness, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it just sufficient for basic use.

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 correctly omits parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and return behavior, which is appropriate and earns a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current whitelist of trading pairs'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_blacklist' or 'add_blacklist', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_blacklist' or other data-fetching siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.

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