get_market_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'current market data' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., price, volume, bid/ask), latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

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 core functionality ('Get current market data') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'market data' entails (e.g., structured fields like price or time), potential errors, or how results are returned. For a tool in a financial trading context with siblings that handle similar data, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented as a trading symbol with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current market data for a symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_backtest_results', which might also retrieve market-related data but with different scopes or timeframes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the symbol must be active or subscribed), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_history' (which might retrieve historical data) or 'get_positions' (which might show current holdings).

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