broker_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key output behavior: 'which brokers net-bought/sold on the latest completed session, in lots and IDR value, with foreign/local/govt classification.' It also clarifies the meaning of 'LATEST' as 'the previous completed session.' However, it does not disclose aspects like data availability, sorting order, or whether the result is read-only. This adds some value but stops short of rich 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a unique selling point and a specific behavioral clarification. It is succinct and well-structured, earning a 5.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (brokers, net amounts, lots, IDR, classification), which is enough for a read-only summary tool with one required parameter. It also clarifies the time window. However, the mention of 'period=LATEST' without a matching schema parameter creates a gap, and it doesn't mention limits or error conditions. Overall, it is fairly complete but not flawless.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain existing parameters—all have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning to the schema parameters; it even introduces a 'period=LATEST' reference that does not exist in the input schema, which could confuse users. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate since the description provides no further semantic value beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Broker summary for an IDX stock: which brokers net-bought/sold on the latest completed session, in lots and IDR value, with foreign/local/govt classification.' It names the resource (IDX stock) and the specific output (broker net-buy/sell with values and classification). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'orderbook' or 'quote' by focusing on broker-level bandarmology data, reinforced by 'This is the core bandarmology signal' and 'TradingView has no equivalent.'

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 context for when to use the tool ('for an IDX stock' and 'core bandarmology signal'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools. 'TradingView has no equivalent' is an external comparison, not internal alternative guidance. The period=LATEST clarification helps with parameter usage but not overall tool selection.

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