etf_list_country

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning read-only nature, output format (e.g., country codes vs. names), ordering, or any other behavioral traits. While not misleading, it is minimal and leaves key details to inference.

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 with the core action and scope. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. However, it does not clarify what 'country values' refers to (e.g., ISO codes) or whether the result is sorted, which might matter for downstream processing. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 and an empty input schema. As per the baseline for no parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('unique country values'), and a clear scope ('for ETFs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other attributes (market, currency, sector) for ETFs or other asset classes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etf_list_market or stocks_list_country. The name implies its purpose, but there is no explicit context on selection criteria or scenarios where this is preferable.

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