get_asset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the fuzzy symbol search behavior and the need to check exactMatch and name fields. It also enumerates the returned data categories, which is beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides detailed examples. It is not overly verbose and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return content for different instrument types and mentions fuzzy search. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't address error handling or not-found cases.

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 single parameter symbol is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that search is fuzzy and that exactMatch and name fields should be checked, which is not in the schema.

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 it returns asset identifying info, current price, and Atlas statistics, with specific details for funds and stocks. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_price and get_technicals by covering comprehensive info.

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 usage for comprehensive asset info but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_asset_price. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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