get_financial_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Live snapshot' weakly implies a read-only, fresh-data operation, but there is no mention of pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result size — significant gaps given non-zero limit/offset 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Its brevity, however, stems from under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum clarify the symbol filter and pagination semantics; it does neither, leaving three parameters effectively undocumented.

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% and no parameter is explained in the description. The phrase 'filtered to financial-market style symbols' gestures at the symbol parameter but gives no format, matching rules, or expected values, and limit/offset are entirely ignored.

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?

States a verb-adjacent concept ('Live snapshot') and a resource ('the CDN board') with a filter qualifier, so the general function is discernible. However, 'financial-market style symbols' and 'CDN board' are undefined jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_derivatives_board or get_physical_board.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With a cluster of near-identical board tools (physical, derivatives, financial), the description never says which board to pick or under what conditions, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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