egx_market_overview

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Get' aligns. The description adds parameter details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or whether the response is paginated. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by two lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

With no output schema, the description should outline what the response contains (e.g., indices, sectors, top stocks). It only says 'comprehensive overview', which is vague. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only provides titles and defaults. The description adds valuable information: it lists allowed timeframe values and states a maximum of 20 for limit. This significantly improves parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 clearly states it provides a comprehensive overview of the EGX market using the verb 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like egx_sector_scan or egx_index_analysis, though the name implies a broad market view.

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 over siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for more specific queries.

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