get_market_turnovers

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. It only states the action and scope; it does not mention default date behavior, market aggregation semantics, read-only nature, or response characteristics. The description adds minimal behavior beyond the name and schema.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant phrasing, excessive detail, or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 relatively simple with fully documented optional parameters, so the schema covers invocation details. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'summary turnover statistics' includes (e.g., volume, value, number of trades). Context is adequate but has clear gaps in expected return semantics.

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%, meaning all three parameters (date, engine, market) are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. With maximum schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get summary turnover statistics across MOEX markets.' It identifies the tool's domain without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_market_data, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_data or list_markets. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or context cues beyond the basic function. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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