resolve_figi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool queries OpenFIGI, performs a pure string mapping, and verifies against SEC data, providing useful process context. It does not detail error handling or failure modes, but these are less critical for a lookup tool.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful process detail without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 adequately covers the main process steps and external dependencies. Since an output schema exists, return values are likely documented there. Minor gaps include not mentioning what happens if the FIGI is not found or the mapping fails, but overall it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'figi' parameter, including an example. The description adds no additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'Bloomberg FIGI' to a 'Yahoo-convention ticker symbol'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_cusip and resolve_ticker by specifying the exact input and output format.

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 usage context is implied by the description: if you have a FIGI and need a Yahoo ticker, you would use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any when-not-to-use conditions.

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