indices_components

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 states the core function and provides no details about return format, error handling, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., whether it supports all index types, or if it returns a list of tickers only). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any wasteful words. The structure is optimal and front-loaded.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of expected output shape or how to handle invalid tickers, which could be important for an agent. It is adequate but not complete; a note on return format would improve it.

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 schema description covers the parameter fully with examples ('SPX', 'AXJO'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves the component stocks of an index, with a specific verb ('get') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indices_quote or indices_prices, which focus on price or performance data, by explicitly focusing on constituents.

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. It doesn't mention that it's specific to indices (though the name implies it), nor does it exclude usage for ETFs or other asset types. There is no mention of conditions like only for indices tickers or distinctions from etf_holdings.

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