listing_symbols_by_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates this is a read/listing operation (safe, non-destructive by nature), and the output is grouped output. However, it doesn't disclose whether the output includes all exchanges at once or requires a parameter, or describe the data freshness/format characteristics beyond what the output schema shows.

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?

One concise sentence that communicates purpose and scope efficiently with zero waste. It could arguably append usage guidance, but as a purpose statement it's appropriately tight.

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 listing tool with one fully-documented parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It could note the relationship to sibling grouping tools, but the exchange-grouping distinction is fairly self-evident from the name and description. Complete enough for this low-complexity 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% and there's only one parameter (source) which the schema already fully documents with its VCI/KBS options and default. The description doesn't need to add further parameter detail; the schema handles it completely.

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+resource+scope: 'Get stock symbols grouped by exchange' with specific exchanges named (HOSE, HNX, UPCOM). This distinguishes it from siblings like listing_all_symbols and listing_symbols_by_group by specifying the grouping dimension (exchange).

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 you need symbols organized by exchange, distinct from listing_symbols_by_group (presumably group-based). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name the alternative grouping tools as alternatives, leaving the differentiation 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.