get_owner_plate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutating, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool aggregates data across exchanges. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 short (one sentence) and includes a bilingual note, which helps with multilingual agents. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices crucial context and parameter guidance. It is concise but not effective.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a simple input parameter, the description should at least mention return format (e.g., list of plate names/IDs) and clarify that the input is one or more stock codes. It also fails to differentiate from similar tools like get_industrial_plate. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.

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%. The parameter 'codes' is an array of strings, but the description does not explain what codes represent (e.g., stock tickers, internal IDs) or how they should be formatted. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess valid input values.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'plates a stock belongs to', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_plate_stocks (which lists stocks in a plate) and get_industrial_plate (which may focus on industrial sectors). However, 'plates' is ambiguous and could benefit from clarification (e.g., 'industry sectors or concepts').

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include get_industrial_plate and get_plate_stocks, but the description does not explain the relationship or when to prefer one over the other. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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