getorderability: AIO orderability door

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile, and the description goes beyond them with real behavior: the result is either one ACM-68000 signal or an evidence_gaps list of pages checked, elements carry back-pointers to chapter/record fields, and output is signed (kid allooloo-eco-2026-10) and receipted at mcp.rco-records.ai. That is meaningful disclosure for a read tool, though the jargon reduces its practical value.

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?

It is a single unbroken sentence stitched together with colons and em-dashes, and roughly half its tokens are opaque codenames and identifiers. The resource is front-loaded, but the signing/receipt clause and nested parentheticals make it hard to scan rather than economical.

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, the description steps in to describe both return branches (signal vs evidence_gaps), provenance of elements, and the signing/receipt envelope — enough to interpret a response. It stops short of explaining failure modes or how to obtain valid client categories in practice, which is a real gap given the strict enum-like matching requirement.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add one linkage not in the schema — that the subject's home market determines which chapter supplies the valid client_category — but it adds nothing about subject formats or how the chapter's category list is discovered.

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?

It names a specific resource ('AIO-10060 orderability outcome') and scope (one security + one client category of the home-market chapter), and ties itself to get_record's subject resolution. But the core nouns — 'AIO-10060', 'chapter', 'node', 'apex', 'door' — are undefined internal jargon, so an agent that hasn't been primed cannot tell what domain object is actually returned without guessing.

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 call this instead of get_record or get_signal; the only sibling reference ('as for get_record') is an analogy about subject resolution, not a routing rule. The distinction from get_signal, which sounds closest in output shape, is never addressed.

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?

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 cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: error instead of signal on unanswered nodes, reserved never-served codes, and the advisory ACM-403 halt behavior with a link to the market's halts page. The only gap is that the meaning of codes like ACM-200 'on the register' is domain shorthand an outsider must infer.

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?

Every clause arguably earns its place, but the single semicolon-chained paragraph is dense and hard to parse, with code names interleaved with behavioral rules. It is front-loaded but not structured for scanning.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating codes plus the per-code page URL. What's still missing is the response payload shape (bare code string vs. structured object), which keeps it from a 5.

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%, but the description goes well beyond it by explaining input edge cases: ambiguous bare tickers return candidates and require an exchange, and a GTIN is explicitly rejected with an alternative service named. That is meaningful semantics the schema does not carry.

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 states a specific verb+resource (fetch the ACM-68000 signal for a listed security in its home market) and enumerates the possible signal codes, so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like resolve_issuer or list_nodes, which is why it stops short of a 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?

It gives several reachable input conditions (bare multi-issuer ticker → candidates, GTIN → ACM-404 with a pointer to gtinfetch.ai, non-responding home node → error), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over resolve_issuer or list_nodes, leaving sibling selection implicit.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context — that it reads nodes.json, flags which nodes are live, and includes regional doors and Agent Cards — but says nothing about size, ordering, or caching.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the payload. Some jargon ('regional doors') is left undefined, which costs a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does name the four content types an agent will receive. It stops short of framing the response shape (array? keyed by region?), leaving a modest gap for a no-param list 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs 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?

States the resource (market nodes) and enumerates the contents returned: roster entries from nodes.json, live status, regional doors, and Agent Cards. That distinguishes it from get_eco, get_signal, and resolve_issuer, though the verb is implied rather than stated ('Every market node on the roster...').

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the siblings (get_eco, get_signal, resolve_issuer), nor any preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase itself.

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.