get_option_exchange_codes

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 does indicate a read-only operation via 'Retrieves', but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or whether it's a static map vs. dynamic query. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word earns its place. It's efficient and clear without any fluff.

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, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and why it's useful, and the output schema covers return values. The context signals confirm no hidden complexity, so nothing is missing.

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 confirms no required inputs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the mapping functionality is self-explanatory. The baseline for 0 parameters 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves the mapping of exchange codes to exchange names for option market data.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the 'useful for interpreting exchange fields' distinguishes it from sibling option data tools. It's a reference lookup, not a data retrieval tool.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for interpreting exchange fields returned by other option data tools.' This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives a strong contextual clue without formal exclusions.

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