Get Contract Details

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

With readOnlyHint: true in the annotations, the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what the response includes (exchange, currency, trading hours, tick size, and other specs), giving the agent a concrete preview of the output and reinforcing that this is a single-contract detail lookup rather than a list endpoint.

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 single sentence that leads with the action and input, then efficiently lists the key return fields. There is no filler or repetition of the title or schema, making it 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the input and the expected output fields. While it doesn't specify the exact response structure, the explicit list of returned specs gives the agent adequate information to decide whether this tool fits the task.

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 schema has one required parameter (conid) with a description ('Contract ID'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description repeats this concept with 'known contract ID (conid)' and adds only a usage nuance (that the conid must be known), which is not new parameter semantics. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('full contract details'), and it specifies the required input ('known contract ID (conid)'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_contracts) by requiring a pre-existing conid, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a known contract ID' establishes a clear prerequisite for use: you must already have the conid. This implies the tool is not for searching contracts, and that search_contracts or type-specific lister tools should be used when the conid is unknown. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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