wait_for_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the maximum wait time of 300 seconds and the requirement for a fresh two-sided quote, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the tool returns the quote or just a success/failure, or what 'fresh' means precisely. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and condition. It is appropriately short and wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail; the conciseness is good but not backed by sufficient content.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns, what happens on timeout, or how 'fresh' and 'two-sided' are determined. For a tool that waits and potentially blocks, the agent needs to know behavior on failure and success. The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation, even with annotations covering read-only safety.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (isin, exchange, timeout_seconds). The description mentions a max of 300 seconds, but it does not link that to the timeout_seconds parameter or clarify its default of 55. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the agent.

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 action (wait), a resource (instrument), and a precise condition (fresh two-sided quote). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wait_for_price, which could be a similar waiting operation. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote, wait_for_price, or get_market_status. The description implies use when a fresh two-sided quote is required, but it does not state when not to use it or point to a sibling for alternative scenarios. The usage context is left entirely to the agent to infer.

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