get_kpi_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns thousands of instruments and that the scope includes Nordic and Global with Pro+, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, potential performance implications, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps for a tool of this magnitude.

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, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with a practical usage caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides important context about result size and scope, but it does not describe the structure of each instrument record or any error handling. This is a notable gap for a tool expected to return thousands of items, so the description is only partially complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including enums for calc and calcGroup. The description adds value by clarifying the 'ALL instruments' context but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: 'Get a specific KPI value for ALL instruments' with scope defined as 'Nordic + Global with Pro+'. This specific verb+resource+scope makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_kpi (which likely targets a single instrument).

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for screening and comparing across the market.' It also advises caution about the large result set, suggesting client-side filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation to implication.

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