resolve_ticker

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: the transformation is a 'pure string transformation (no Yahoo network calls)' and that it 'verifies against SEC company_tickers.json and/or OpenFIGI'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence provides valuable technical context without unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core process, clarifies network usage, and mentions external verification sources. It lacks some edge-case behavior details but is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters adequately. The description hints at 'exchange suffix mapping' but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for full 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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('raw ticker symbol to its Yahoo-convention equivalent'), clearly identifying the tool's unique function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that resolve other identifiers (CIK, CUSIP, FIGI).

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 context is clear: use when a raw ticker needs conversion to Yahoo format. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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