get_market_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specifics on what factors influence the result (quote freshness, spread, TR trading status), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

A single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the key discriminating factors. No filler, no redundancy. Perfectly 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, read-only) and has an output schema, which presumably describes the response structure. The description captures the essential semantics. The only missing piece is parameter-level explanation, but that is a separate dimension; overall, the definition is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain either 'isin' or 'exchange' in any way. While the parameter names are self-evident, the description adds no guidance on format, defaults, or how 'exchange' affects the result. This is a significant gap for an optional parameter with a null default.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Whether an instrument is tradable right now') and defines the output via concrete factors (quote freshness, spread, Trade Republic trading status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote (price) or get_instrument (metadata), so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 when to use it—whenever tradability is the question—by stating its focus. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. No misdirection, but no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance either, which keeps it at a 4.

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