Market Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates the output concept but says nothing about call behavior, the default exchange, time window, data source, or side effects. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no filler and a clear, front-loaded concept. Every word contributes meaning, making it extremely concise.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description leaves a clear gap by not explaining the exchange parameter and not guiding selection among the sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the call parameter and usage context remain under-specified.

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 exposes one optional exchange parameter with a default of 'dse' and has 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions the exchange parameter, so an agent cannot learn what values are valid or how the parameter affects the summary.

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 identifies the tool's output as market breadth counts of rose/fell/flat/never-traded shares. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_stock or sector_performance, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not directly contrast with siblings.

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 about when to use market_summary versus the ten sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the output definition.

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