market_data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the raw data types and available indicators, and noting that tickers are required (though schema shows default ''). There is no contradiction with annotations. Score 4 because it provides additional context but has a minor inconsistency about tickers requirement.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, then lists available indicators (redundant with enum but helpful). Every sentence contributes value, though the list of indicators is long. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool. Score 4 for being concise yet comprehensive.

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 complexity (20 parameters, many siblings), the description covers scope, usage, and key parameter (indicator). It references the output structure implicitly by mentioning 'raw data' and 'available indicators'. With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. Score 4, as it is complete for its context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: it mentions tickers format and available indicators (which are already in the enum). Other parameters like lag, growth, trailing are not explained beyond their schema descriptions. Hence score 3, as the description adds marginal value.

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 'Raw financial data' and lists specific data types (historical prices, statements, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'use this ONLY for raw data needs — for pre-computed ratios, performance, risk, or model metrics use the dedicated tools instead.' This meets the 5 criteria: specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('raw data needs') and when-not-to (pre-computed metrics), explicitly naming alternatives ('dedicated tools'). It also explains ticker format ('comma-separated') and mentions the required indicator parameter. This satisfies the 5 criteria for explicit context and exclusions.

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