market_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that omitting indicator returns a list of available indicators and mentions the ticker format. However, it does not disclose behavior around failed requests, rate limits, or the impact of many optional parameters.

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 paragraph with a clear front-loaded structure: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third mentions required parameters. However, the list of available indicators repeats the schema's enum, which is somewhat redundant but not excessive.

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 20 parameters and numerous sibling tools, the description provides essential context about raw vs. computed data and the required indicator/tickers. It does not explain the interplay of parameters like quarterly, growth, or trailing, but the presence of a full input schema and output schema reduces the burden.

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 provides extra context for the indicator parameter (behavior when omitted) and the tickers parameter (example format). This adds value beyond the schema, especially for the required parameters.

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 provides 'raw financial data' and lists specific data types (historical prices, income statement, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'for pre-computed ratios, performance, risk, or model metrics use the dedicated tools instead'. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this ONLY for raw data needs' and points to alternative dedicated tools for computed metrics. It also provides a required parameter example ('tickers='AAPL'') and notes that omitting indicator returns available list. However, it lacks more detailed when-not-to-use scenarios.

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