indices_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like operation ('List') but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, not does it describe pagination, sorting, or error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid exchange). For a list tool, it is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then presents the optional filter. This is appropriately concise.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description clearly indicates the purpose. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of ticker symbols'), but for a straightforward listing tool, it covers the essentials. No annotations or output schema exist, so the description is the main source of context, and it is reasonably complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'exchange', which already provides an example. The description says 'optionally filtered by exchange', which essentially restates the schema without adding new meaning. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and resource ('index tickers'), with an optional filter. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like indices_list_exchange or other asset-class tickers, though the name implies the domain. It does not restate the name, so it is not a tautology.

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 does not mention that indices_list_exchange might be for listing exchanges or that indices_gainers/losers are for top performers. The description only says 'optionally filtered by exchange' without explaining when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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