get_market_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns market open status and summary of major indices, which is basic behavioral info. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. Adequate for simple tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical examples is concise and front-loaded. No fluff; every part contributes to understanding.

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?

Tool has simple input (1 param) and no output schema. Description covers input but return value is vague: 'summary of major indices' lacks structure detail. Given no output schema, more precise description of return format would improve completeness. Currently adequate but minimal.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'market' parameter meaning with examples (e.g., US, GB, ASIA, EUROPE), adding significant value beyond the schema's title and default. This clearly defines valid values and usage.

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?

Description clearly states it gets market status and summary for a region, with examples (US, GB, ASIA, EUROPE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote (individual tickers) and get_historical_prices (time series). The verb 'get' and resource 'market status' are specific.

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?

Description implies usage when needing regional market status and summary, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. No mention of prerequisites or context like requiring a region code.

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