stocks_list_country

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. However, it only states the purpose and does not describe the return format (e.g., array of strings), any ordering, or potential edge cases. This leaves the agent unsure about the output structure, so a score of 2 reflects this gap.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it does, but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of country names or codes, or whether it is sorted). Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so a score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to consume the result.

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 no parameters, so the schema documents everything (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, as the description adds no unnecessary param detail.

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 action (Get), the resource (unique country values), and the scope (stocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_list_country or forex_list_country by the asset class, making it easy for an agent to identify which tool to use.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name itself implies the asset class, but there is no statement about when to prefer this over other list_country tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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