Financial Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it flags the payload as 'untrusted', notes that responses are 'bounded', and explicitly disclaims evaluation and Evidence Carrier verification — important caveats an agent needs in order to trust the result correctly.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the critical caveat. Dense but every clause carries meaning; no padding.

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, but the description covers the response posture (transport status only) reasonably well, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main incompleteness is the undocumented parameters and the lack of any routing guidance relative to its two siblings.

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 none of the three parameters (topics, timeout, max_bytes) are mentioned in the description. 'Bounded' gives only the vaguest nod to max_bytes/timeout, and the topic enum values are nowhere explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('bounded untrusted read-only JSON') with a clear scope limited to fixed routes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools financial_evidence_route or financial_evidence_topics, so an agent can't tell from this text alone why it should pick this vs. those.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. The only usage-adjacent content is a negative scope note ('evidence is not evaluated... verification is not performed'), which tells the agent what the result is not, but not when to call it.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it resolves to fixed sources and performs no network retrieval. It does not disclose what happens for an unresolvable topic or whether results are cached/stable across calls.

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 the action front-loaded and the key negative constraint (no fetching) placed where it does the most routing work. No filler.

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 agent must infer what a resolution actually returns — presumably source identifiers or URLs per topic — and the description never says so, nor does it address partial failure when some topics do not resolve. Adequate for a one-parameter tool, but the return contract 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an enum array of eight topics, so the schema carries the value list without prose. The description's "one or more" correctly signals the array/multi-topic semantics but adds no meaning about topic granularity or whether topics map one-to-one to sources.

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 verb ("Resolve"), a resource ("financial research topics"), and the output type ("fixed public raw-JSON sources"). The phrase "without fetching them" implicitly separates it from the sibling financial_evidence_fetch, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 clause "without fetching them" tells the agent this is the routing/planning step and that retrieval belongs to a different tool, which is clear context for choosing between this and financial_evidence_fetch. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement or naming the alternative.

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.