get_warrant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any required authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. The lack of detail reduces 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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a parameter example. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core functionality and a parameter example. However, it lacks details about the output format, any filtering options, or the meaning of 'cbbc', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description provides an example ('e.g. HK.00700') that clarifies the expected format and value for stock_owner. This adds meaning beyond the basic type definition, but no further semantic details are given.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'warrants/cbbc list for an underlying', providing a specific example for the stock_owner parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_analyst_consensus and get_capital_flow, all of which are different data retrieval tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_option_chain or get_snapshot, which might also return underlying-related data. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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