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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the signed receipt, 60-second TTL, fail-closed rule for UNKNOWN and HALTED, the requirement to not execute if the tool is unreachable, latency expectations, and the exact return fields. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear labels, but it is overly verbose. Repetitive emphasis like 'Pre-trade safety check', 'USE AS', and 'This is not optional data' could be condensed. The extensive regulatory compliance details and model-agnostic framing add length without directly aiding tool selection or invocation.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly enumerating the return fields (receipt_id, mic, status, etc.) and behavioral semantics such as TTL, fail-closed rules, and the requirement to include attestation_ref in downstream flows. It also covers edge cases like expired receipts and unreachability, making the description genuinely complete for a safety-critical tool.

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?

Although the schema already covers the single 'mic' parameter with 100% coverage, the description adds substantial value by listing all 28 exchange codes with their full exchange names, categorizing them (Equities, Derivatives, Crypto 24/7), and explaining the expected status values. It also clarifies that SMA means Signed Market Attestation, not Simple Moving Average, which prevents 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 clearly states that the tool returns an Ed25519-signed market-state receipt for pre-trade verification and pre-execution gating across 28 global exchanges. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (market-state receipt), effectively distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_market_schedule and get_payment_options.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this BEFORE executing any trade, treat it as a safety gate, and halt execution if the status is not OPEN or the receipt is expired. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives (though list_exchanges is referenced in the schema), so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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