Financial Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: data is bounded and untrusted, status reports are transport-only, evidence is not evaluated, and Evidence Carrier verification is not performed. This meaningfully informs the agent about what the tool will and will not do.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool fetches and from where; the second adds critical qualifications. There is no filler 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?

The description gives some return semantics ('Status reports transport only') and names the data sources, but with no output schema it does not fully describe expected response content, error behavior, or how topics relate to the fixed routes. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the three parameters. It only uses the word 'bounded' to hint at limits, but it does not explain topics, timeout, or max_bytes. This leaves essential parameter-level meaning undocumented outside the raw schema.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('read-only JSON'), and the scope ('fixed LiquiLens, Undertow, Seiche, and Palimpsest routes'). It conveys a specific purpose and is distinguishable from the sibling tools by describing a fetch operation rather than route/topic management, though it does not explicitly name the siblings.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus financial_evidence_route or financial_evidence_topics. It implies usage for fetching evidence data from fixed routes but offers no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance.

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 non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool resolves to 'fixed public raw-JSON sources' and does not fetch them, clarifying that this operation is deterministic and side-effect-free beyond what the annotations explicitly list.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, specifies the input, names the output, and adds a behavioral qualifier. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 single enum-constrained parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides the essential behavioral contract: resolve topics to fixed public raw-JSON sources without fetching. It could have been more explicit about the return shape or how to route to the fetch sibling, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'financial research topics' without explaining what those topics are, how to choose them, or what each enum value means. The schema provides the allowed enum values, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the tool title.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('financial research topics') and a defined outcome ('to fixed public raw-JSON sources'). The phrase 'without fetching them' distinguishes this from the sibling financial_evidence_fetch tool, so an agent can tell what the tool does even before considering 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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. 'Without fetching them' suggests the agent should use this tool when it only needs source references, and use financial_evidence_fetch when actual content is required, but the description never names the sibling or states a when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule. The guidance is present but indirect.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that routes are fixed, public, raw-JSON, and that no network access is performed. This gives the agent important behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place: 'supported topics' states scope, 'fixed public raw-JSON routes' states output shape, and 'without network access' sets behavioral expectations.

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 parameterless listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to expect (topics and routes), the nature of the routes (fixed, public, raw-JSON), and an important behavioral constraint (no network access). Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The schema already covers this fully, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is warranted given the absence of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting these are static routes retrieved without network access, which distinguishes it from financial_evidence_fetch and financial_evidence_route.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to discover available topics and their routes, likely before fetching evidence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'without network access' phrase provides useful context for choosing this tool over a fetch/route operation.

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