get_index_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only names the action and an optional response component. It does not describe what 'analytics' includes, how date or omitted index affects results, or what the output looks like, so an agent gets little transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 one focused sentence, front-loads the main action ('Get MOEX index analytics'), and appends only the optional differentiator and examples. There is no redundant phrasing or wasted detail.

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?

The tool is simple with only optional parameters and a 100% documented schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, the key output concept 'index analytics' is vague and there is no output schema or return-type description, leaving a notable gap in what an agent should expect the call to return.

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%, so the schema fully documents date, index, and tickers. The description adds example index IDs and restates the composition-with-weights behavior, but does not materially extend the parameter semantics, warranting the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get MOEX index analytics' and 'optionally index composition with weights,' with concrete index examples (IMOEX, RTSI). This makes the tool's focus clear and distinguishes it from get_security_indices, which concerns indices associated with a security, though it doesn't explicitly draw that contrast.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when to set tickers=true versus false. The examples imply use for index-level analytics, but there is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving an agent to infer selection from the name.

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