get_all_symbols_by_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output_format enum and a 'toon' option described as 'optimized for AI', which adds some context. However, the return type is specified as 'pd.DataFrame' despite 'json' and 'toon' being options, creating inconsistency. No disclosure of side effects, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 relatively concise at about 25 words plus docstring formatting. The Args/Returns structure is clear and front-loaded. However, the initial line is vague, and the docstring is somewhat redundant with the schema. Every sentence earns its place but lacks explanatory depth.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'group' values are valid, how to find available groups (sibling 'get_all_symbol_groups' exists but is not mentioned), or the exact behavior of output formats. The return type inconsistency further reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'group: str (group name to get symbols)' and lists output_format options with a default, but adds little beyond the schema. The 'toon' optimization hint is a minor addition, but the relationship between 'group' and the returned symbols is unclear.

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 'Get all symbols from stock market', aligning with the tool name 'get_all_symbols_by_group'. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_all_symbols' (which likely gets symbols without grouping) or 'get_all_symbols_by_industry'. The phrase 'by group' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about what 'group' refers to.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how 'group' relates to other tools like 'get_all_symbol_groups'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over siblings.

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