Instrument details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance beyond them: the market-dependent `indices` field is populated for Egypt and null elsewhere, which shapes how an agent interprets results.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the general (all-markets) behavior before the market-specific exception. Every clause carries information; no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though it omits any note on auth requirements or error behavior for unknown symbols.

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 the `market` enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The 'Egypt only … null elsewhere' note adds market-specific meaning, but it describes output behavior rather than clarifying the parameter itself.

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 precise verb+resource ('company profile and listing details for one instrument') and enumerates the returned fields, making the data scope obvious. The 'for one instrument' framing cleanly separates it from search_instruments, which discovers symbols rather than describing one.

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 single-instrument framing implies a lookup-by-symbol use case versus search, but the description never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus search_instruments, get_peers, or get_financials. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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