get_market_overview

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 describes what data is returned (IHSG index, volume, top movers) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get Indonesian stock market overview') and includes specific details (IHSG index, volume, top movers) that earn their place by clarifying scope.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is returned but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data format, potential limitations, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values or usage constraints would improve completeness for this data-fetching tool.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary details.

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: 'Get Indonesian stock market overview including IHSG index, volume, and top movers.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Indonesian stock market overview'), and key components (IHSG index, volume, top movers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_sector_performance' or 'get_historical_data' beyond the general 'overview' scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over siblings like 'get_sector_performance' for sector-specific data or 'get_historical_data' for time-series analysis. There's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites stated.

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