get_market

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

The description provides key behavioral traits: the 'status' field behavior (open/closed/next times) is limited to the 'US' key due to upstream constraints. It clarifies that null status for other keys is not an error, setting correct expectations. Given no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though it could detail other potential fields (e.g., change calculation).

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose before explaining detailed behavior. It avoids wasted words. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by moving the 'status null' explanation into the second sentence.

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 has 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the purpose, input, and key behavioral nuance (status null for non-US). It is complete for a simple data retrieval tool, though it could hint at output structure (e.g., fields like price, previous close) since no output schema is visible in the evaluation context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'key' parameter with allowed values and the status limitation. The description adds context about the purpose (e.g., answering market open/close questions) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 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 retrieves trading status and headline index summary for a market, specifying it answers questions about market open/close times and index performance. It explicitly distinguishes the input as a market key (e.g., 'US', 'EUROPE') not a ticker symbol, which differentiates it from siblings like get_quote or get_history.

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 explains when to use this tool (for market-level status and index summary) and explicitly warns that 'status' is only available for 'US' and null for others due to upstream limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus others (e.g., for individual stocks or detailed quotes), leaving some context implicit.

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