indices_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not reveal expected response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only lookup this is less critical, but without annotations the description should at least hint at what the output looks like (e.g., list of index names).

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently states the purpose without additional fluff, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of what it does. However, it does not describe the output structure or potential limitations (e.g., whether it returns only index symbols or additional details like weights). For a straightforward query, it is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'ticker' is fully documented as 'Stock ticker to find index exposure for.' The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the ticker is used to find indices. Baseline of 3 applies because 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's purpose: to find which indices hold a specific ticker as a component. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('indices'), making it distinct from sibling tools like indices_components (which lists components of an index) or etf_exposure (which handles ETFs). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to discover which indices include a given ticker, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or routing between sibling tools. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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