Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully adds behavioral context by specifying 'COST: 1 credit' and detailing the return structure ('Each index with price, change, and change percent'). However, it omits other behavioral traits like data freshness (real-time vs delayed), rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 uses a structured format with clear sections (purpose, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence delivers value: the specific indices listed define scope, the cost disclosure is critical for credit-based APIs, and the return structure compensates for the missing output schema. No filler text is present.

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 simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides complete coverage: it explains inputs (none), outputs (field structure), usage context, and operational cost. For a parameter-less market data fetch, no additional information is required for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description confirms this with 'No parameters needed' and provides an example of '{}', aligning perfectly with the schema without adding unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Get[s] current values for major market indices' and specifically lists S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow Jones, and VIX. This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like veroq_ticker_price or veroq_market_movers, which could overlap conceptually.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states 'For a quick check on how the overall market is doing' and notes 'No parameters needed.' This provides clear context for invocation. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use veroq_ticker_price for individual stocks'), preventing a score of 5.

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