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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey that the call returns the entire universe in one shot (no pagination, no per-symbol loop). It does not state that the operation is read-only, the likely payload size/cost, or any rate limits — meaningful gaps for an unfiltered bulk fetch.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return shape front-loaded before the usage sentence. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the return, and it tells the agent the grain (one row per symbol) but not the columns of each row — an agent cannot tell whether a row holds indicators, prices, or signal scores. The single required param is at least covered implicitly, leaving the shape known but the content unknown.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter whose enum values (2h, 4h) are self-documenting. The description adds that the interval is a single value applied across all rows, which is slightly more than the schema shows, but it does not explain what the interval represents (candle timeframe) or any defaults.

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 full market table — every supported symbol at one interval, one row each" states the resource and its scope (all symbols) precisely, which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_signal. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the scope wording is clear enough to avoid most confusion.

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?

"Use this to scan, filter or rank the market in a single call" gives an explicit use context and implies the bulk/cross-sectional workflow (as opposed to a per-symbol lookup). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is context without routing.

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