indices_list_exchange

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. The description only restates the tool's action at a high level ('Get unique exchange values') and doesn't disclose the output format, whether values are codes or names, or any other behavioral detail. It's a read operation, so no destructive concerns, but nothing meaningful is added 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it's borderline under-specified — 'Get unique exchange values for indices' almost exactly echoes the tool name, so the conciseness is more a product of minimalism than of efficient information density.

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 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the bare minimum. It hints at the return (unique exchange values) but doesn't clarify the output shape. It's adequate for a trivial list tool but leaves an agent to guess what the response looks like.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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+resource: 'Get unique exchange values for indices.' It's specific about what is returned. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (stocks_list_exchange, futures_list_exchange, forex_list_exchange) — the name itself carries that discrimination, not the description.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like indices_list_country, indices_list_timezone, or indices_tickers. There is no when/when-not context or mention of what scenario would select this over siblings.

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