etf_tickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List etf tickers' without mentioning return format, pagination, or any side effects. It doesn't clarify whether this returns all tickers or a subset, and doesn't address any limitations or requirements (e.g., no prerequisites).

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, perfectly succinct sentence that conveys the core function and optional filters. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description is adequate, but given the large number of sibling tools with similar names, it lacks contextual clarity about how this differs from etf_list_country or etf_list_exchange. Also, no output schema exists, so the description could have mentioned what data the response contains (e.g., ticker symbols only, or additional metadata).

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%, so both parameters (country and exchange) are described in the schema. The description adds a brief note that filters are optional, which aligns with the schema but provides no extra meaning about value formats or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('etf tickers') with optional filters, making the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools like etf_list_country or etf_list_exchange, which could cause confusion about which tool to use.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the numerous specialized siblings (e.g., etf_list_country, etf_list_exchange). The description only mentions optional filters but doesn't indicate when those filters are preferred over dedicated listing tools or what distinguishes this from a general listing function.

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