get_clock

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves and formats data, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not describe potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior when the market is closed (e.g., whether next open/close times are still returned). This minimal disclosure is adequate but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieves and formats') and the target information ('current market status and next open/close times'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, has no parameters, and an output schema is present (per context signals). The description conveys the core purpose without needing to detail return fields. It could be slightly more specific about what 'market status' includes (e.g., open/closed, extended hours), but given the output schema, this is adequate.

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, so the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4.

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 retrieves and formats current market status and next open/close times. It specifies a distinct resource (current market status, times) and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_calendar, which focus on calendar dates rather than the current state.

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 implied usage is evident: when you need to know if the market is open and when it next opens/closes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since get_calendar is a sibling tool that might be confused with this, additional guidance on when to use get_clock vs get_calendar would improve the score.

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