Get Futures Contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only non-expired contracts are returned, which is useful. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with the annotation covering the read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 is front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope. There is no wasteful wording or redundancy.

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 (one parameter, full schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation), the description provides sufficient context. It does not explicitly describe return values, but the purpose implies the output is the list of contracts. For a read-only lookup tool, this is adequately 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the 'symbols' parameter, including an example and description. The description's 'by underlying symbol' aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what is already documented, so the baseline 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 action ('Look up'), the resource ('non-expired futures contracts'), and the scope ('by underlying symbol'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_stock_contracts and get_option_contracts by specifying futures and non-expired status.

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 clear context: it is for looking up futures contracts by symbol. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when this tool should not be used, so no exclusions are provided.

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