Capital Markets Agents: MCP+A2A Canada

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful architectural trait — that the record is served by the owning node's regional door and never held at the apex — but says nothing about auth needs, error behavior, or what happens when the identifier is unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and resource before adding nuance. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical about the apex is niche jargon that earns its place less clearly than the first half.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape and how identifier/version resolve. It does neither, and the appeal to node topology does not tell the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions neither the required identifier nor the optional version. The word "full" hints that no projection is applied, but that does not compensate for two completely undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ("Return") and resource ("the full Capital Markets Record"), which is enough to distinguish it from the list_* and resolve_issuer siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, and the second clause about the "regional door" and "apex" is jargon that obscures rather than clarifies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools a caller might reach for instead. The agent must infer the usage context purely from the name.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one genuine behavioral hint — that results are sourced per owning node's regional endpoint — but it is cryptic and omits return shape, pagination, or ordering for a list operation with no output schema.

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 short clause with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is a verbless fragment whose second half ('regional door') is unparseable jargon, so brevity comes at the cost of structure rather than through efficiency.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description carries the full explanatory burden and delivers almost nothing: no parameter meaning, no usage context, and only a fragmentary hint about regional sourcing.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'identifier' parameter, and the description says nothing about what the identifier refers to (an issuer, a node, a record) or its expected format. Because coverage is low, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 phrase 'Sourced trade and former names' mostly restates the name/title ('List sourced aliases') in expanded form rather than stating a verb+resource action, and no verb ('list') appears at all. The trailing clause 'served by the owning node's regional door' is opaque jargon that adds no discernible scope or distinction from siblings like get_record or resolve_issuer.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_record, resolve_issuer, or list_nodes, nor any prerequisite or context guidance. The one hint — that data is 'served by the owning node' — is too vague to route an agent between siblings.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the routing note about the 'owning node's regional door', and says nothing about pagination, cursor behavior, or limits despite the cursor/limit parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the resource and scope come first. The density of undefined jargon like 'regional door' trades clarity for brevity but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum specify date format, identifier type, and pagination via cursor/limit. None of these are present, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely maps to 'identifier' and 'since'. It never mentions the limit or cursor parameters, gives no date format, and does not clarify what kind of identifier (issuer ID, ticker, etc.) is expected.

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 specific resource (dated, URL'd disclosure events) and scopes it to an issuer since a date, which an agent can distinguish from get_record, list_aliases, list_nodes and resolve_issuer. The vague jargon 'owning node's regional door' muddies the delivery mechanism but does not obscure what is returned.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_record or resolve_issuer, nor any prerequisite (e.g. resolving an issuer first) or exclusion. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that the result set is a fixed twelve nodes with liveness and Agent Card data, which implies no pagination or filtering, but says nothing about ordering or failure modes.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key content (the twelve nodes and their attributes) is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly hurts clarity but not length.

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, non-paginated read tool with no output schema, the description covers enough to know what comes back at a high level. However, undefined domain terms like 'market nodes', 'regional doors', and 'Agent Cards' are not explained, leaving the agent unsure what the returned data actually represents.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it largely restates the title 'List market nodes', but it does add real detail beyond it: exactly twelve nodes, liveness status, regional doors, and Agent Cards. The resources covered are identifiable, though nothing distinguishes this from sibling list tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The sibling tools (get_record, list_aliases, list_events_since, resolve_issuer) are never referenced, so the agent must infer from the name alone when this listing is the right call.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the apex node resolves ownership and forwards to a regional node for the summary — but says nothing about failure modes (unknown identifier), latency, or what the summary contains.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing detail, with no filler. The trailing architecture jargon ('apex names the owning node and forwards to that node's regional door') is dense and slightly obscures rather than clarifies.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering the return value, the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet only says 'the record summary' without defining it. For a single-parameter lookup the input side is well covered, but the output side and the internal routing metaphor remain under-specified.

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 parameter description already spells out ticker formats, ISIN, LEI, exact legal name and sourced alias. The description adds little beyond repeating 'ticker, ISIN or LEI', and in fact omits the legal-name and alias forms the schema supports, so it is baseline at best.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Find') and resource ('listed company') and enumerates the identifier kinds (ticker, ISIN, LEI), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it never contrasts itself with the nearby sibling get_record, even though it also mentions returning 'the record summary', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a company from an identifier, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no comparison to siblings like get_record or list_nodes. The agent must infer that resolution is the entry point to the record summary.

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