trademcp_search_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior: matches are ranked with exact symbol matches first, which tells the agent how to interpret ordering and that fuzzy matches are possible.

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 opening two sentences are front-loaded with purpose and the selection condition, which is the highest-value content. The trailing Args and Returns blocks duplicate the input schema and output schema respectively, adding length without new 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?

An agent knows what the tool does, when to reach for it, how results are ranked, and what fields come back. With an output schema present, the Returns section is redundant rather than necessary, and no note on empty-result behavior is included, so it falls just short of 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every schema parameter already carries a description with examples and the 1-50 range. The Args block essentially restates the schema (query, limit, response_format) without adding syntax, matching semantics, or format details beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (NSE-listed companies) with the two acceptable key types (ticker or company name). The scope makes it clearly a symbol-resolution tool, distinct from the sibling data-fetching tools like trademcp_get_quote or trademcp_get_fundamentals.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition: use when the user supplies a company name instead of an NSE code, or when the symbol may be ambiguous. It implies the inverse (skip if you already have the code) rather than stating it, and names no alternative tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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