listing_symbols_by_group

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 doesn't state whether this is a read operation (though 'get' implies non-mutating), doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or any edge cases around groups/exchanges, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'groups' and 'exchanges' for the two sibling listing tools.

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 states the purpose without waste. Adequately front-loaded. However, given the minimal description, some structural opportunity for edge-case notes is missed, but the extreme brevity is acceptable.

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, which helps complete the picture. However, with zero annotations, this listing tool's description is fairly thin. It doesn't address how 'group' differs from 'exchange', which is relevant given sibling tools listing_symbols_by_exchange and listing_all_symbols. Adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves interpretation ambiguity.

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 both parameters (group and source) are documented with examples of valid values and defaults. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'market group', but with full schema coverage 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 'Get stock symbols in a market group' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (stock symbols by market group). It distinguishes from listing_all_symbols and listing_symbols_by_exchange, though it would benefit from naming these alternatives explicitly. Clear purpose overall.

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 vs alternatives like listing_symbols_by_exchange or listing_all_symbols. The input schema mentions market groups like VN30, HNX30, HOSE, etc., providing implicit context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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