get_market_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds only the default market behavior and the word 'current' to imply real-time data. It does not mention that omitting security returns all securities, whether the data is delayed, how bid/ask is populated, or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a data-access tool.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key data fields, followed by the default market scoping. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a high burden on the description. The description fails to explain what happens when parameters are omitted, what the response shape looks like, or how to combine this with sibling tools. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for an agent to confidently handle edge cases.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing the default engine/market values, which are already present as defaults in the schema. It doesn't explain edge cases like omitting security or board, so it doesn't elevate above baseline.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('market data for securities'), and enumerates the data fields (price, volume, bid/ask, change). This makes it clear what the tool returns and helps distinguish it visually from more specialized siblings like get_orderbook or get_recent_trades, though it doesn't explicitly name a competing tool.

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 only usage hint is 'Defaults to stock/shares market,' which conveys the default engine/market but does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_orderbook or get_recent_trades. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use that instead' guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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