get_market_state

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It only mentions supported prefixes but does not explain what happens with invalid codes, whether it requires authentication, or if it has any destructive or read-only behavior.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a Chinese translation. No redundant information. It efficiently conveys the essential idea.

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 tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the return format, whether it returns a single state or multiple, or any edge cases. A more complete description would include these details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'codes' are (e.g., ticker symbols, format) beyond mentioning prefixes. There is no guidance on how to structure the array, case sensitivity, or limits. The description adds no value over the bare schema.

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 specifies that the tool gets market state (open/closed/lunch break) for codes with supported prefixes. It clearly indicates the resource (market state) and action (get). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the context of many financial data tools makes its unique purpose evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not the best context for invoking it.

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