symbol_search

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. 'Search endpoint' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the first and only phrase), it doesn't earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool name. It's not verbose, but it's inadequately informative.

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 complexity implied by two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools for financial data, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what inputs mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning neither parameter ('keywords' and 'datatype') has documentation in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, valid values, or how they affect the search. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'symbol_search' without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'search' but doesn't specify what is being searched (symbols, financial instruments, etc.) or what resource is involved. Compared to sibling tools like 'stock_quote' or 'company_overview', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.

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. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., 'stock_quote', 'time_series_daily', 'crypto_intraday'), there's no indication of what makes 'symbol_search' unique or appropriate for specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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