reference_get_market_status

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 'Get current trading status' and does not explain what the response looks like, whether it covers all exchanges or a subset, timezone implications, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or output.

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 and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space, matching the simplicity of the 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the return value represents, but it does not. The phrase 'trading status' is vague; it does not specify whether the response is a list of markets, a single status, or details like open/closed/after-hours. For a zero-parameter tool with no schema, this lack of detail makes it incomplete for an agent to predict the output.

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 there is no parameter-specific information needed beyond the schema, which is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter context but does not need to.

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 ('get') and the resource ('current trading status of exchanges and markets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_exchanges and reference_get_market_holidays. It is unambiguous 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only restates the basic function without contextualizing it relative to the many sibling market data tools.

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