etf_list_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'unique' values, which implies deduplication, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or sorting. For a simple list tool this is adequate, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear. This is as concise as possible for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns: unique market values. It does not specify the exact data type or format, but for a list tool parallel to etf_list_country, this is likely sufficient. The ambiguity of 'market' is a minor gap.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by specifying the output is 'unique market values', which is more than the name alone. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('unique market values for ETFs'), distinguishing it from other etf_list_* siblings like etf_list_country or etf_list_currency. However, 'market' is ambiguous—it could refer to exchange, region, or something else—so it doesn't fully disambiguate from all siblings.

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 the many sibling list tools (e.g., etf_list_country, etf_list_sector). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions that would steer an agent toward or away from this tool.

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