resolve_cusip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the OpenFIGI batched query, suffix mapping, SEC verification, and veto on gross name mismatch. The note that CUSIP is input-only and outputs carry different identifiers is valuable. It stops short of 5 by not describing failure modes or error behavior, but it is unusually rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise process details and a critical input/output note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 multi-step resolution process (OpenFIGI query, mapping, verification), the description covers the key behaviors and constraints. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. Minor gaps like failure handling or rate limits keep it from a 5, but it is highly complete for a complex 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 input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation with a clear description ('9-character CUSIP (or 7-character SEDOL) identifier'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Resolve a CUSIP (or SEDOL) identifier to a Yahoo-convention ticker symbol.' This precisely states what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_figi or lookup_cik by input type and output.

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 is strongly implied through the purpose statement and process details (e.g., handling both CUSIP and SEDOL, mapping to Yahoo ticker). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The sibling tool names provide additional context but are not referenced.

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