alpaca-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Add' with no details about idempotency, failure behavior, whether it appends or replaces, or any side effects. For a write operation, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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-front-loaded sentence. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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, complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any behavioral context or guidance about interaction with sibling tools, making it only complete enough for a straightforward selection but not for understanding side effects or error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only tying 'by symbol' to the asset and 'specific watchlist' to the watchlist_id. It does not add syntax or additional semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource ('an asset by symbol') and destination ('a specific watchlist'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id and update_watchlist_by_id.

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 the usage context (adding an asset to a watchlist) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing watchlist or that the asset must be known, nor does it reference the opposing remove operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety-relevant behavior. It states the action but does not mention irreversibility, the full scope of orders affected (stocks, crypto, options), or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately states the operation's purpose and scope. However, it omits any caution or confirmation details that could be expected for a cancel-all operation, though these are more behavioral than contextual.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to add parameter information. No additional semantics are required.

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 'Cancel all open orders' uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('all open orders'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_order_by_id and replace_order_by_id. The scope is unambiguous and operational.

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: when the goal is to cancel every open order at once. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., cancel_order_by_id) or exclusion conditions, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the core action ('Cancel'). It does not disclose implications such as irreversibility, restrictions on order state (e.g., only open orders), or error handling if the order no longer exists. The behavioral scope is minimal.

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 is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on side effects, exceptions, or what happens when the order cannot be canceled. Given the simplicity, this is a reasonable but not thorough description.

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 schema already fully describes the order_id parameter as a UUID string with the description 'order id', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Cancel') and the target resource ('a specific order'), with the qualifier 'by its ID' distinguishing it from bulk-cancel and other order operations. This is specific and 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?

The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'a specific order' implies single-order cancellation, contrasting with sibling tools like cancel_all_orders, but it does not name them or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: sell orders remain queued when the market is closed and execute later. However, it does not mention the optional cancellation of existing orders, potential partial failures, or reversibility, which are significant for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences, the first stating the main action, the second adding a valuable edge-case caveat. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the core function and a key market-closed behavior, which is sufficient for most use cases. It could mention more about order types or failure modes, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'cancel_orders' with a clear conditional description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details; a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action and scope: 'Closes all open positions by placing sell orders for each.' This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling 'close_position' which presumably targets a single position.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for liquidating all open positions, which differentiates it from single-position tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is strong enough to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses that the tool places a sell order and that if the market is closed, the order queues and executes at the next open. This exceeds minimal coverage, though it could mention order type or default full-close 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 is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by an important behavioral note. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and the notable queued-order behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit mention that omitting qty/percentage closes the entire position, but the title and description imply a full close.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as the default behavior when neither qty nor percentage is provided, which would be valuable but is not present.

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 action: 'Closes a specific position for a single symbol by placing a sell order.' The verb 'closes' and the resource 'position' are specific, and 'for a single symbol' distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_all_positions.

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 a single position, contrasting with close_all_positions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The queued order behavior is a usability note, not a direct alternative comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a locate request, but does not disclose idempotency behavior, error conditions, side effects on locate inventory, or what happens when quantity or all-or-none constraints are violated. For a mutating operation without annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the domain, the required inputs, and the optional inputs with no wasted words. It earns its place entirely.

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?

With an output schema and fully described input properties, the description is minimally adequate for basic invocation. However, it omits guidance about the recommended Idempotency-Key usage and does not distinguish when to use this creation tool versus related locate-reading or locate-quote tools, leaving some context to be inferred.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, qty, all_or_none, limit_price, and Idempotency-Key. The description adds only a high-level restatement of required and optional parameters, and it uses 'limit price' without clarifying that this refers to the locate fee rather than a stock price, which the schema does explain.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it creates a locate request for a short sale. It clearly distinguishes this creation action from sibling tools like get_locate, get_locate_quotes, and get_locates, which read locate data rather than create it.

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 gives clear context for use: creating a locate request for a short sale, requires symbol and quantity, with optional limit price and all-or-none flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create-versus-read distinction from the sibling list makes the appropriate use clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only restates the basic create operation and does not disclose potential behaviors such as duplicate-name handling, validation errors, idempotency, or permissions. This is minimally informative but not misleading.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource while naming the relevant content, so an agent can quickly parse the tool's purpose.

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 low-complexity creation tool with a complete input schema and an available output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies what to create and what can be included, while the schema covers parameter requirements and the output schema covers return structure. The main gap is the lack of guidance about edge cases, but this is a minor omission here.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both 'name' and 'symbols'. The description adds little beyond restating that symbols are included in the new watchlist, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 action (create), the resource (watchlist), and the key content (specified symbols). It differentiates from sibling tools like update_watchlist_by_id and delete_watchlist_by_id because 'new' signals creation rather than modification or deletion.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'new' and by the sibling set: this is the watchlist creation tool, distinct from update, delete, add-asset, and list tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users toward alternatives like add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id when modifying an existing watchlist.

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

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'delete' without mentioning permanence, cascading effects, auth requirements, or error behavior. Minimal value beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste; front-loaded verb and object.

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?

Tool is simple with one well-documented parameter; description is adequate for basic usage, though it omits behavioral details like return codes or idempotency, which are not critical given low complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameter with description 'watchlist id', so baseline 3 applies. Description adds no additional meaning to the parameter.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'watchlist' and qualifier 'by its ID', clearly distinguishing from sibling operations like update_watchlist_by_id or get_watchlist_by_id.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative mention. Usage is implied by the name and action, but the description lacks guidance on prerequisites or distinctions from other watchlist operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, or any submission requirements. No mention of potential outcomes or special conditions, making it insufficiently transparent for an action that modifies an option position.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Submits.' It contains no redundant information and is efficiently structured.

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?

This is an action tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to provide context such as when the instruction is valid, what happens after submission, or any restrictions. Given the existence of the closely related exercise_options_position, more explanatory detail is required to fully understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 schema has one parameter with a description ('Option contract symbol or ID'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds the qualifier 'held option contract,' clarifying that the parameter must refer to a contract in the user's position, which goes beyond the schema's generic phrasing and improves semantic clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submits') and a resource ('do-not-exercise instruction for a held option contract'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling exercise_options_position. The 'do-not-exercise' phrasing directly contrasts with the exercise action, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus exercise_options_position or other alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and generic description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral disclosure. It reveals the primary effect (converting option to underlying asset), which is valuable, but it does not mention reversibility, cash requirements, expiration constraints, or whether it applies to both calls and puts. This is a moderate level of 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and result. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key verb.

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 description is too brief for a financial action tool with no annotations or output schema. It does not clarify behavior for both call and put options (the phrase 'converting it into the underlying asset' is call-centric and may mislead for puts), nor does it mention prerequisites, return values, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in context.

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 already fully describes the only parameter ('Option contract symbol or ID.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('exercises') and resource ('held option contract'), and adds the key consequence ('converting it into the underlying asset'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'do_not_exercise_options_position' and 'place_option_order'.

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 the use case (exercise an option you hold) but does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tool 'do_not_exercise_options_position' is not referenced, so guidance on when not to use this tool is absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds useful context about the tool's narrow scope (fetching documentation pages by ID) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, pagination, or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context, and the third clarifies the tool's limitation. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simple fetch-by-ID tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what the ID means, and what it is not for. No critical gaps remain.

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 schema only defines an 'id' string with no description, so the tool description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'id' is a documentation page ID, which is essential for correct invocation. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is clearly stated, the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Fetch one Alpaca ReadMe documentation page'), the resource ('Alpaca ReadMe documentation page'), and the key parameter ('page ID'). It also differentiates itself from related lookup tools by explicitly stating it is not for API endpoint lookup by method and path.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after search_alpaca_docs returns a relevant page ID, or when a page ID is already known. It also provides a clear exclusion ('not for API endpoint lookup by method and path'), which helps route the agent away from sibling tools like search_alpaca_api_specs or get_alpaca_endpoint_docs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says returns a list; there is no mention of pagination, default ordering, date semantics (created_at vs settlement date), or how filtering parameters affect the result. The schema partially covers some of this, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The examples are meaningful and help convey the tool's scope without adding unnecessary detail.

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 output schema and 100% parameter coverage reduce the burden on the description. However, with nine parameters and a large sibling set, the description lacks usage context such as when to choose this over get_account_activities_by_type or how pagination behaves. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples of fills, dividends, and transfers loosely align with activity_types but add no parameter semantics or syntax beyond what the schema already documents. It does not compensate with additional meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns account activities, with informative examples (fills, dividends, transfers). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_account_activities_by_type, though the difference is partially inferable from the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_activities_by_type or get_orders. It does not state scenarios, exclusions, or that a more targeted tool exists for filtered activity types.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only restates the obvious retrieval behavior and type filter. It omits context such as pagination behavior, created_at-based filtering, and the fact that activity_type values come from an external enumerated list; much of that detail lives only in the parameter schema.

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 tight sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it is so brief that it skips usage differentiation and behavioral context that would have made it more valuable.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a required activity_type whose valid values are not enumerated, the one-sentence description is insufficient for confident invocation. It does not explain how this endpoint relates to get_account_activities nor where valid activity_type values can be found; the output schema helps with return shape but not with these usage gaps.

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 100%, and the parameters already carry detailed descriptions for date filtering, pagination, ordering, and order_id association. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'type', which maps straightforwardly to the required activity_type parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Returns account activity entries') and names the core filter ('for a specific type of activity'), which distinguishes it from the broader get_account_activities sibling. It is clear, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_account_activities or other activity-related endpoints. The description and schema leave the relationship to sibling tools unstated, so an agent has no basis for choosing between them.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly conveys a read-only operation ('Retrieves') and indicates the current state of the configuration, adding context beyond the tool name. While it does not discuss error conditions or permissions, the zero-parameter, read-only nature makes this adequate, though slightly more detail on response traits could push it higher.

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 sentence that leads with the action and includes a concise list of the settings covered. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 has zero parameters and includes an output schema for response details, so the description's job is simply to state what the tool does and what it covers. The sentence fully achieves this, making the description complete for this simple read-only tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description cannot add parameter-specific meaning because there are none; the description's enumeration of output contents is the relevant semantic contribution.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'account configuration settings', while enumerating key settings (trading restrictions, margin, PDT checks, options level). This differentiates it from siblings like get_account_info and update_account_config.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs the account's configuration settings, such as margin or PDT status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the specificity of the listed settings provides enough contextual guidance to distinguish it from other account-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves and formats,' but does not explain what 'formats' means, whether authentication is required, data freshness, or any side effects. Basic read-only behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and avoids excessive detail. The phrase 'and formats' is slightly vague and does not add much actionable value, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It identifies the core resource and data elements ('balances and status'). However, it could slightly benefit from noting that it returns current data or clarifying the 'formats' aspect, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the guideline, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Retrieves and formats the current account information including balances and status.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('current account information') and adds distinguishing detail ('balances and status') that separates it from siblings like get_account_config or get_account_activities.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., get_account_config) would be more appropriate. The context signals show no such guidance in the description.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about the large unfiltered response size and advises filtering, which is important behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the warning is the most critical behavioral trait for this list endpoint, so a 4 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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, includes an essential warning, and names the alternative tool. Every sentence contributes value.

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 output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. The description covers the essential usage context: it's a list tool with optional filters, warns about the large response, and directs to a more specific sibling tool. This is complete for a filtered-list tool with fully documented schema.

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 100%, with each parameter already having a detailed description, especially the attributes enum. The description adds a hint to use status, asset_class, or exchange for narrowing, but doesn't add new syntax or detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get all available assets with optional filtering." It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_asset by stating "To look up a single asset, use get_asset instead," making the scope clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by warning that the unfiltered response is very large and instructing to always narrow results with status, asset_class, or exchange. It also names the alternative tool (get_asset) for single-asset lookups, which is clear exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format (JSON) and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or if there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action, scope, and output format.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It specifies what the tool does ('retrieves all current positions'), the scope ('in the portfolio'), and the return format ('as JSON'), which is complete for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter information to add; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'all current positions in the portfolio', making it distinct from singular siblings like get_open_position and portfolio history tools. The 'all' and 'current' wording provides specific scope.

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 use when a complete snapshot of current positions is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_open_position for a single position. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating 'Read-only; does not execute the endpoint; excludes Broker API.' This clarifies that fetching docs is a safe operation and sets expectations about scope. No contradiction with 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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then the usage condition, then the behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description clearly handles the main decision point (resolved endpoint vs. searching). The only notable gap is the undocumented 'title' parameter, but the default value in the schema mitigates this. Overall it is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 explains that 'method and path' identify the exact endpoint, which adds meaning to those two parameters. However, it does not explain the optional 'title' parameter or provide formatting/value guidance for path or method. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch reference docs for one exact Alpaca API endpoint by method and path.' It also distinguishes the tool from sibling search/list tools by noting the endpoint must be 'already resolved' and explicitly excludes Broker API. This leaves no ambiguity about what the 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 gives a clear usage condition: 'Use when the endpoint is already resolved and details such as parameters, request shape, responses, or examples are needed.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not execute the endpoint') and its boundary ('excludes Broker API'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the condition strongly implies when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves and formats' but doesn't explain data freshness, potential errors, required permissions, or any limitations. The vagueness of 'formats' also leaves room for ambiguity about the output shape.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about where this fits relative to snapshot tools and what asset classes are supported, so it's not fully complete.

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 parameter schema fully describes symbol_or_asset_id (including CUSIP acceptance), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retrieves and formats' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific asset', which is distinct from sibling tools like get_all_assets that list assets. It precisely indicates the scope of a single asset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stock_snapshot or get_crypto_snapshot. There is no mention of asset classes, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that unbounded requests return an extremely large multi-year response, but it leaves 'formats' vague and does not specify what the calendar entries represent beyond what the schema's date_type parameter already describes.

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?

Two focused sentences: the main action is stated first, and the critical warning follows immediately. There is no redundant or filler 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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat return details. The warning covers the main invocation hazard. Still, a brief mention of what the calendar contains (e.g., trading holidays, non-trading days) would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the expected YYYY-MM-DD format and by warning that both bounds should always be supplied even though they are not required by the schema. It adds no new semantics for date_type, but the schema already documents that enum.

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 and resource ('Retrieves and formats market calendar') and limits scope to a date range. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the 'market calendar' resource is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 warning clearly instructs the caller to always provide start and end dates, explaining the consequence of omission. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but there is no obvious sibling for calendar retrieval.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves and formats data, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not describe potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior when the market is closed (e.g., whether next open/close times are still returned). This minimal disclosure is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieves and formats') and the target information ('current market status and next open/close times'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, has no parameters, and an output schema is present (per context signals). The description conveys the core purpose without needing to detail return fields. It could be slightly more specific about what 'market status' includes (e.g., open/closed, extended hours), but given the output schema, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves and formats current market status and next open/close times. It specifies a distinct resource (current market status, times) and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_calendar, which focus on calendar dates rather than the current state.

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 implied usage is evident: when you need to know if the market is open and when it next opens/closes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since get_calendar is a sibling tool that might be confused with this, additional guidance on when to use get_clock vs get_calendar would improve the score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Retrieves' but discloses no other behavioral traits such as 404/error handling, permissions, or what happens if the ID does not exist. The description is minimal and does not add value beyond the name and parameter schema.

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 directly states the action without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists) the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks context on error cases, prerequisites, or how this fits with the plural sibling tool, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description's 'by ID' adds marginal emphasis but no new semantic detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves a single corporate action announcement by ID, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_corporate_action_announcements' (plural) by indicating it operates on a single known ID.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for fetching a specific announcement when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus the plural sibling tool or mention alternatives/exclusions. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that broad queries can return very large responses, which is a non-obvious operational trait. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the 90-day date restriction, though some of this is present in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a pointed performance warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools like get_corporate_action_announcement and get_corporate_actions, which could leave an agent unsure if this is the right endpoint.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds only practical guidance around narrowing date range and filtering by symbol, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: "Retrieves corporate action announcements" with examples (dividends, mergers, splits, spinoffs). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_corporate_action_announcement (singular) or get_corporate_actions, so an agent may not know which tool to select for a given intent.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: "Use a narrow date range and filter by symbol when possible" and warns that broad queries return very large responses. It does not, however, mention when to prefer this tool over the sibling corporate action tools or state any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves and formats' and does not mention sorting by process_date, pagination, region defaults, data quality filtering, or that this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of useful context, and the sentence does little more than restate the tool's purpose as implied by its name.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and several similarly named siblings. A one-sentence description is insufficient to guide correct selection and invocation. While the output schema and input schema provide structural detail, the description fails to explain how this tool fits among related corporate action endpoints.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage means the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Retrieves and formats corporate action announcements.' This clearly conveys the core function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named siblings such as get_corporate_action_announcement and get_corporate_action_announcements, leaving ambiguity about which tool to select.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_corporate_action_announcement or get_corporate_action_announcements. It also does not mention important selection behaviors such as the mutual exclusivity of the 'ids' parameter or when to prefer this endpoint over related corporate action tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds a useful behavioral detail—the automatic start-time computation from days/hours/minutes—which is not fully expressed in the schema. However, it does not address pagination, response ordering, or any cross-symbol aggregation behavior, so it only modestly extends annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by the one meaningful default behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It could be more complete by contrasting with get_crypto_latest_bar or noting when this endpoint should be preferred, but that gap is more about selection guidance than call correctness. The auto-start sentence is a valuable addition for a 9-parameter tool.

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 100%, with each of the 9 parameters already documented (types, defaults, enumerated timeframe values, and RFC 3339 formats). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond grouping days/hours/minutes into the lookback computation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Retrieve historical price bars (OHLCV) for one or more cryptocurrencies,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. The word 'historical' helps separate it from get_crypto_latest_bar and get_crypto_snapshot. It is unambiguous even without naming a sibling.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative tools like get_crypto_latest_bar or get_stock_bars. The only secondary sentence concerns default start-time computation, not selection context. This leaves an agent to infer applicability from the tool's name and purpose.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the read operation and adds a critical non-obvious constraint: 'always set loc to us,' despite the enum listing other locations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but 'Returns' implies a safe read, and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical loc constraint. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the data returned, the required location, and symbol list shape. It omits possible limits on symbol count or multi-symbol return format, but those are likely handled by the output schema. The low complexity makes this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that symbols must be 'one or more' and by mandating loc='us' even though the schema permits other enum values. This is meaningful guidance an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Returns the latest minute bar for one or more crypto symbols,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates well from siblings like get_crypto_latest_quote (quote vs. bar) and get_crypto_bars (historical vs. latest).

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 gives a precise invocation instruction ('always set loc to us') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings. Tool-selection guidance is only implied by the phrase 'latest minute bar' versus sibling names. This is adequate but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that the response includes the full order book depth and 'can be large,' which warns the agent about payload size. It also instructs to always set loc to 'us,' which is a directive beyond the schema's enum description. This adds meaningful context without contradicting any structured data. It does not mention side effects, but as a read operation that is acceptable. Overall, it discloses key behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical usage note and size warning follow efficiently. Every sentence contributes information that is not already in the schema, so it earns its place.

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 has only two parameters (both required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the crucial loc instruction, and a warning about response size. There is nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly that is missing. The output schema handles return value details, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 already has complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising 'always set loc to "us"'—this is not in the schema and tells the agent the correct value to use in practice. For symbols, the description reaffirms 'one or more crypto symbols' but the schema already explains the comma-separated list format. The extra loc guidance pushes this above baseline.

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 ('Returns the latest orderbook'), a resource ('orderbook'), and scope ('for one or more crypto symbols'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_snapshot, which return different data. The intent is unambiguous and an agent can immediately know what data this tool provides.

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 provides a concrete usage instruction: 'The loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us".' This is practical guidance for calling the tool correctly. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_snapshot), nor does it state exclusions or conditions for selection. The guidance is useful but not about tool selection, so it only partially satisfies the dimension.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own; 'Returns' does signal a read-only quote retrieval, and the loc requirement is stated. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or freshness, but for a simple quote lookup with an output schema these omissions are minor.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one required caveat; no wasted 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?

For a two-parameter quote tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and the critical loc convention. It could be stronger by naming relevant sibling tools, but nothing required to make a correct first call is missing.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by instructing the agent to always select 'us' among the loc enum values, which is not otherwise indicated as preferred.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('latest quote'), and a scope ('one or more crypto symbols'), so an agent can separate it from get_stock_latest_quote, get_option_latest_quote, and get_crypto_latest_trade. The sibling differentiation is not explicit, but the resource and qualifiers are enough to make the purpose 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?

The description provides one operational rule: the loc parameter is required and must always be set to 'us'. It does not, however, name any sibling tool or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as get_crypto_quotes or get_crypto_latest_trade, so usage context is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful operating constraint ('always set loc to "us"') and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication expectations, data-locality implications, or the meaning of 'latest' in terms of market data freshness. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first gives the tool's purpose, and the second gives the critical call constraint. Every part earns its place.

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 low-complexity read tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly: what it returns, the required loc value, and the symbols input. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining when this endpoint should be selected over the related crypto quote, snapshot, or trades endpoints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance by instructing the agent to always pick 'us' from the loc enum, which is exactly the kind of selection help an agent needs. It also reinforces that the tool handles one or more symbols.

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?

States a concrete action—'Returns the latest trade'—on a specific resource ('crypto symbols'). The use of 'trade' and 'crypto' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_latest_bar, even without explicitly naming them.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over get_crypto_trades, get_crypto_latest_quote, or get_crypto_snapshot. The only operational note is loc='us', which is parameter-level instruction, not a use-case or alternative-selection guideline.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, so the description correctly aligns with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining that omitted start is computed as now minus the days/hours/minutes lookback. This is a meaningful disclosure of default behavior without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence identifies exactly what the tool does, and the second sentence provides the most important default behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making information: what is retrieved, for which asset class, and how the key time-range default works. The remaining parameter details are already handled by the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting start, days, hours, and minutes into a single formulaic behavior, which the individual parameter descriptions do not fully express. It does not need to restate each parameter.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('historical bid/ask quotes'), and a clear domain ('cryptocurrencies'). The word 'historical' distinguishes it from latest-quote siblings like get_crypto_latest_quote, and 'crypto' distinguishes it from stock/option quote tools.

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 gives clear contextual guidance for the relative lookback behavior when start is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'historical' qualifier and sibling names make the intended use inferable without confusion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data componentshol. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential failure modes, and the loc instruction could mislead 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 is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and output contents. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists and there are only two parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the inaccurate loc instruction makes it less reliable, and since there are no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source; a brief note on supported locations or expected use would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a parametertion instruction, 'always set loc to "us"', but that conflicts with the schema enum that includes 'us', 'us-1', 'us-2', 'eu-1', and 'bs-1'. This actively misleads rather than clarifying parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('snapshot for one or more crypto symbols'), and enumerates the contained data types (trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, previous daily bar). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that return only a single data type such as get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_latest_trade.

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 only usage guidance is 'always set loc to "us"', which addresses a parameter value rather than tool selection. There is no explanation of when an agent should choose this snapshot tool over alternative crypto data tools, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusion context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining how start is computed when omitted. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, cross-symbol limit application, or error conditions, though some of this is present in the schema and output schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important start/lookback nuance is in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a fully described input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It does that for the start/lookback interaction. The main gap is routing guidance among sibling crypto tools, but that is not essential for a correct call given the rich schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds a clarifying note about the interaction of start with days/hours/minutes, but it does not substantively enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve historical trade data for one or more cryptocurrencies.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling latest-trade, bar, quote, and snapshot tools, and the plural support ('one or more') is stated explicitly.

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 historical trade data but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_crypto_latest_trade, get_crypto_bars, or get_crypto_quotes. The relative lookback behavior is explained, but no when-not-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (bid/ask prices, sizes, yield-to-maturity) and the required input format, which gives the agent an accurate mental model. It does not cover error handling or latency, but for a read-only quote retrieval this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a concrete example and output details in the second. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input requirements, and return content. It does not explain edge cases like invalid ISINs, but the combination of schema descriptions and output schema makes it complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 already fully describes both parameters (ising list and trade_size) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the isins parameter with an example but adds no additional meaning for trade_size. Thus it merely meets the baseline without exceeding what the schema provides.

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's function: returning latest quotes for fixed income securities. It specifically names the asset class (bonds, treasuries) and distinguishes it from sibling quote tools for stocks, crypto, and options. The verb 'Returns' is precise and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context by telling the agent to provide a comma-separated list of ISINs, including an example. It implies this is the tool for fixed income quotes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns' without detailing error behavior, authentication requirements, side effects, or its read-only nature. It also does not clarify what happens when the ID does not exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 simple single-ID retrieval tool, the description combined with the complete input schema and output schema provides an adequate core contract. However, it could benefit from noting its relationship to get_locates or handling of missing IDs, so it is slightly above the minimum viable.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for locate_id, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('a single locate request by its ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_locates (plural, likely listing) and get_locate_quotes. It precisely identifies the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_locates or get_locate_quotes. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data (read-only), but it does not mention any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, required permissions, or handling of invalid symbols. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic read operation, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information. This is an example of efficient writing.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema available, so the description covers the essential purpose and invocation. The main gap is not differentiating from similar sibling tools like 'get_locates', but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'symbols' parameter already described as a comma-separated list with a max of 100 unique symbols. The description merely repeats this ('Provide a comma-separated list of symbols'), adding no new semantic meaning. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Returns locate availability and pricing for one or more symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies a distinct resource ('locate availability and pricing'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stock_quotes or get_locates. The scope is explicit, making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need locate quotes for symbols) and gives input instructions ('Provide a comma-separated list of symbols'). However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as explaining the difference between this tool and the similar 'get_locates' or 'get_locate' siblings. Usage context is clear but not differentiated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sort order (creation date descending) but omits pagination behavior, result limits, and any details about the date timezone semantics that are only in the schema. For a read tool, this is a minimal but present disclosure.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, given the absence of annotations and the large set of sibling tools, the description does not hint at when to use this list endpoint versus the singular get_locate, nor does it mention pagination for large result sets. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description itself is minimal.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including formats, enums, and pagination token mechanics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing that filtering is by status, symbol, or date range, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 locate requests for the account and lists the filter dimensions (status, symbol, date range). It uses a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_locate, the plural 'requests' strongly implies a list operation, so it mostly distinguishes itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_locate (singular) or create_locate. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be chosen. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are based on real-time SIP data and that both gainers and losers are returned, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not specify the calculation period, sorting, or any potential rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the purpose and data source economically, every word earns its place.

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 and provides an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the essential purpose and data source. The description is complete enough for this level of complexity, though additional caveats (e.g., market hours) could be added.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully explains both parameters (market_type and top). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: returning top market movers (gainers and losers) using real-time SIP data. It is specific about the resource and differentiates from sibling tools like get_most_active_stocks by focusing on movers rather than activity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but provides only a general screening action and the ranking metric. It does not mention output structure, time frame (per day), or limitations, placing the burden on the schema instead.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key differentiating detail (volume or trade count). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple structure with output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage differentiation from get_market_movers and does not explicitly clarify 'per day' semantics, leaving some context gaps.

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 100% and documents both 'by' and 'top' clearly. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond restating the 'by' metric, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses the verb 'screens' and clearly identifies the resource (most active stocks) and the ranking criteria (by volume or trade count). It distinguishes from quote/bar retrieval siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with the similar get_market_movers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the overlap with get_market_movers is unaddressed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (headlines, summaries, URLs, ticker symbols) but does not mention pagination behavior, result limits, or content inclusion flags—these are left to the schema. The behavior is not misleading, but the description adds only modest transparency beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core function, and the second covers filtering and output. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 has 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main use case (filtering and retrieving news) without explaining return values in detail, which is appropriate since the output schema exists. It could mention pagination or limits, but those are well-defined in the schema, so the description suffices for initial selection and 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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description summarizes key filtering dimensions (symbols, date range, sort order) but does not add detail beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieves news articles for stocks and crypto,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like quotes, bars, and trades, which retrieve market data rather than news. The mention of 'headlines, summaries, URLs, and associated ticker symbols' further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 says 'Filter by symbols, date range, and sort order,' which establishes the tool's typical usage context. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, the sibling list shows no other news retrieval tool, so the usage context is clear without needing exclusions.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Retrieves' and implies no mutation, but it does not disclose behavior on missing positions, authentication requirements, or any formatting details. This is a minimal but not misleading description.

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 earns its place without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simple nature of the tool, one parameter, and an output schema that covers return structure, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any contextual guidance on when to prefer this over get_all_positions, leaving a minor gap.

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 already fully describes the parameter with 100% coverage ('symbol or assetId'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic reference to a 'specific open position'.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieves' and specifies 'details for a specific open position', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_all_positions. The term 'formats' adds a hint about output structure, though it's slightly vague. Overall, it states a specific verb and resource.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of getting all positions or closing a position, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers only a single sentence covering the basic retrieval action. It omits pagination behavior, default start/end semantics, and real-time access constraints that the schema parameter descriptions mention.

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, front-loaded sentence is efficient and appropriately sized. It could be slightly richer, but it wastes no words and the core purpose is immediately visible.

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?

Even with an output schema provided, the description is incomplete for tool selection. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral notes, and any differentiation from sibling bar/quote/trade tools, so an agent would have to infer when to invoke it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only hints at the 'symbols' parameter via 'one or more option contracts' and adds no meaning beyond the detailed per-parameter documentation already present 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), names the exact resource ('historical bar (OHLCV) data'), and targets 'one or more option contracts'. This clearly distinguishes it from stock and crypto bar siblings without needing to open the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_trades, get_option_contract, or get_stock_bars. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that select it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: 'The response can be very large,' which warns about payload size. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or data source (e.g., real-time vs delayed), which could affect invocation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Immediately front-loaded with the action.

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 12 parameters and a rich output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering guidance. It doesn't explain pagination, but the schema includes page_token descriptions. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the content (trade, quote, IV, greeks) helps differentiate. Overall adequate for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting the most relevant filter parameters (type, strike_price_gte/lte, expiration_date, limit) and their purpose in narrowing results. This gives the agent actionable guidance beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieves option chain data for an underlying symbol' with a specific verb and resource, listing included data (trade, quote, IV, greeks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_option_contract or get_option_snapshot.

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?

It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it provides clear context for when filtering is needed ('The response can be very large. Use the type... parameters to narrow results'). This implies usage for broad chain queries but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as potential error responses, required permissions, or differences from similar snapshot/quote tools. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words and is easy to scan.

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 description is adequate for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, especially given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks guidance on how to format symbols or distinguish this tool from the many similar option-related siblings (e.g., 'get_option_snapshot', 'get_option_latest_quote'). The completeness is sufficient but not enriched.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter ('symbol_or_id' with 'symbol or contract ID'). The tool description merely repeats this information and adds no extra semantic detail, such as the expected format of a symbol or how to use a contract ID. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Retrieves'), the resource ('option contract'), and the method ('by symbol or contract ID'). It explicitly says 'single', which distinguishes it from the plural sibling 'get_option_contracts' and other option-related tools like 'get_option_chain'.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single option contract when you have a symbol or contract ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for batch lookups use 'get_option_contracts'). It provides clear context but no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but omits important behaviors like pagination, default filters (e.g., active contracts only), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with such a broad filter set.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous content, making it concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity leaves out valuable context, so it loses a point for being too sparse relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite a rich schema and output schema, the description is minimal and does not address the tool's complexity, such as whether it supports pagination, how it relates to get_option_contract, or what kind of data is returned. This makes the description incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the resource type, earning the baseline score of 3 as per the rubric.

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 retrieves option contracts for underlying symbols, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_option_contract (singular) or get_option_chain, which could be confused for similar functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning suitable scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only operation via 'Retrieves', but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or whether it's a static map vs. dynamic query. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word earns its place. It's efficient and clear without any fluff.

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 (0 parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and why it's useful, and the output schema covers return values. The context signals confirm no hidden complexity, so nothing is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no required inputs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the mapping functionality is self-explanatory. The baseline for 0 parameters is appropriate.

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's function: 'Retrieves the mapping of exchange codes to exchange names for option market data.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the 'useful for interpreting exchange fields' distinguishes it from sibling option data tools. It's a reference lookup, not a data retrieval tool.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for interpreting exchange fields returned by other option data tools.' This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives a strong contextual clue without formal exclusions.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and output content but doesn't delve into nuances like latency, indicative feed modifications, or formatting specifics. The schema's feed description covers some of this, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key output attributes. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording.

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 (2 parameters, output schema provided), the description offers a clear overview. It doesn't explicitly mention multi-symbol support or the feed parameter, but those are fully covered in the schema. The combination of the description and structured data is sufficient for a basic read tool, though a bit more context about output format could be added.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither elevates nor reduces the score.

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 uses the specific verb phrase 'Retrieves and formats' and clearly identifies the resource as 'latest quote for one or more option contracts.' It also lists concrete content (bid/ask prices, sizes, exchange information), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_option_latest_trade or get_stock_latest_quote.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the feed selection trade-offs or suggest scenarios where this tool is preferred. Although the schema's feed description gives some context, the main description lacks any usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious action and does not mention potential delays, feed differences, data source implications, or any limitations. Without this, the agent cannot anticipate the behavior beyond the basic function.

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, concise sentence communicates the core functionality without any unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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, the presence of a complete output schema, and full schema descriptions for parameters, the description is adequate. It could be enhanced with usage guidance, but the essential information for invoking the tool is present.

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 100%, and both parameters (feed, symbols) have descriptive schema text. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (retrieves), the resource (latest trade), and the scope (one or more option contracts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_option_latest_quote (quotes vs. trades) and get_option_trades (historical vs. latest).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_option_latest_quote or get_option_trades. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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