forex_tickers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' tickers, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any output format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond that it lists tickers. For a simple list tool this is minimally sufficient but not rich; a 3 reflects the lack of explicit behavior disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The main action ('List forex tickers') is front-loaded, and the optional filter behavior is stated succinctly. It is perfectly concise and structured.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any mention of what the output looks like (e.g., a list of ticker symbols), pagination, or how it differs from named siblings like forex_list_exchange. Given the abundance of similar tools in the sibling list, a bit more context about output or disambiguation would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a basic listing operation.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description only says they are optional filters, which adds little beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 ('List') and resource ('forex tickers'), and explicitly mentions the optional filters (country/exchange). This clearly distinguishes it from stock/ETF/crypto ticker lists, and the phrase 'forex tickers' leaves no ambiguity about the asset class.

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 gives a clear context: it lists forex tickers and can be filtered by country or exchange. It does not explicitly call out alternatives (e.g., forex_list_exchange or forex_list_country) or state when not to use it, but the optional-filter phrasing implies it is the primary ticker-listing tool. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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