assets_get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('getting trading schedule') without describing response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with key information about the type of data returned (trading schedule vs. other asset data).

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 an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what a 'trading schedule' contains, typical use cases, or limitations. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema with format, examples, and pattern. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 ('Получение' - 'Getting') and the resource ('расписания торгов' - 'trading schedule') for a specific instrument. It distinguishes from siblings like assets_get (general asset info) and assets_get_params (asset parameters), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related tools like assets_get_exchanges (exchange info) and market_data_get_bars (market data), but the description doesn't indicate when trading schedule data is needed versus other asset or market data. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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