get_etf_info

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: 'not guaranteed real-time', informing the agent that the quote may be delayed—a detail not present in the annotations. This is useful additional context.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed immediately by the only caution worth knowing. There is no filler or redundant 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the action, resource, and a key data-freshness caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the key clarification that order_book_id is an Avanza order-book ID and not the separate instrumentId. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('ETF identity, listing and latest available quote'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_etf_details or other get_*_info tools, so an agent may need to inspect schemas to choose between them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_etf_details, get_stock_info, or get_certificate_info. The description only states what it does without giving any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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