get_market_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context that it returns trading status (open/closed) for specific markets, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict and enhances transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a strategy and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 0 parameters, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and an existing output schema, the description provides complete guidance. The strategy and example further clarify usage.

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?

There are no parameters, so description need not add param info. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Get current trading status for all markets (CN/HK/US)' with a specific verb and resource, and the strategy further clarifies it is for checking if markets are open. The name and scope distinguish it from sibling tools focused on market summary or anomaly.

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 strategy says 'Directly invoke to check if markets are open,' implying when to use it, but it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives like 'get_market_summary' or 'get_market_anomaly'.

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