stocks_list_market

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 says 'unique market values,' which implies deduplication, but gives no details on output format, ordering, or whether the market values correspond to exchanges, types, or something else. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no other 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?

The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. It earns the highest score for conciseness.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimal but workable. However, the term 'market values' is ambiguous—it could mean exchanges, market types, or something else—and the lack of context about the function of the tool (e.g., does it return a list of distinct markets?) leaves room for misinterpretation. Given the complexity is low, a 3 is fair, but it could be improved with one clarifying phrase.

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 the schema covers 100% of them trivially. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description's 'stocks' scope is the only relevance, and it aligns with the name.

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 a verb ('Get') and a resource ('unique market values for stocks'), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like stocks_list_country, but the name and the phrase 'market values' help narrow the intent. A 4 reflects that it's clear but relies on the tool name for differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., stocks_list_currency, etf_list_market). An agent must infer that this is for stock market values, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. This is a significant gap for a tool in a large family of similar list tools.

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