tv_data_providers_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by revealing that results are time-sensitive ('right now') and that the tool will explain the cause of unavailability. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately communicates purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, and the core question ('which providers are usable') is front-loaded before the explanatory clause.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what makes it different from data-fetching tools, and what kind of answer to expect (usable or not, plus reasons).

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; nothing is missing here.

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: checking which OHLCV data providers are currently usable, and provides the additional promise of explaining why not if a provider is unavailable. This is specific and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_data_get_bars or tv_screener_run, which serve different functions.

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 implies a real-time availability check but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent can infer use context, but there is no direct guidance such as 'check this before requesting data' or 'use tv_data_get_bars for historical bars instead.'

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