ACM-68000 signals for listed issuers

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains every signal code, notes the home-market scope, covers the conditional ticker case, routes GTINs elsewhere, discloses the system-error condition, and clarifies that halted status is advisory and links to the market's halts page. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and nothing contradicts them.

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 tool's purpose and then efficiently enumerates the signal codes and edge cases. It is dense but appropriately sized for the number of status codes, with only the signal-page URL sentence being marginally expendable.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it explains the identifier expectations, the meaning of each possible signal, the conditional exchange requirement, the GTIN exclusion, and the halted advisory behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the identifier schema already documents ISIN, ticker with exchange, LEI, and CMR key formats. The description adds useful semantics by warning that a bare ticker may name multiple issuers and by excluding GTINs, directing them to gtinfetch.ai.

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 identifies the resource as the ACM-68000 signal for a listed security in its home market and enumerates the possible signal codes. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_record and resolve_issuer by its focus on a signal status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 input-specific guidance such as adding an exchange when a bare ticker names multiple issuers and asking gtinfetch.ai for GTINs. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like resolve_issuer or get_record, leaving selection largely implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the result set is a fixed enumeration of exactly seven items, and each item carries a page identifier with a predictable acm-<code>.ai naming pattern — useful for a follow-up get_signal call. It stops short of saying whether this is a static snapshot or refreshed data, and the fragmentary phrasing leaves the 'returns a list' action implicit.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key content (the seven signals, their meaning, their page codes) is front-loaded. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full statement of action, which slightly weakens immediate comprehension.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: how many entries come back, what fields each entry has, and the page-code format. The only real gap is the relationship to get_signal, which the agent must infer from the naming convention.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies no filtering or input is needed to get the full set.

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 names a concrete resource (the seven ACM-68000 signals) and states exactly what each entry contains: the signal's meaning for a listed issuer and its page filename (acm-<code>.ai). The fixed cardinality of seven plus the page-reference detail makes the tool's output identifiable at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the get_signal sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: by describing the complete set of seven signals and their codes, the description hints this is the catalogue-lookup step. It never states when to call this versus get_signal (e.g., 'call this first to discover codes, then use get_signal'), and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the intent but must do the routing work itself.

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