Off-Exchange (Dark Pool) Volume

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses several high-value behaviors: the FINRA file excludes consolidated tape volume (so share-of-volume must be computed elsewhere), weeks before 2025-08-11 may include case-variant sibling data, and publication is delayed by tier. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the caveats. It is dense and multi-sentence but each sentence carries real information (component breakdown, missing consolidated volume, data-quality window, delay). Slightly long, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the per-week fields and flagging the consolidated-volume gap and the pre-2025-08-11 data caveat. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or correctly qualify the result is missing.

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 already documents all four parameters with types and defaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond noting the listing must be exact; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (weekly off-exchange/dark pool/OTC trading volume), and source (FINRA OTC/ATS Transparency), and even defines the components returned (ATS, non-ATS OTC, total). An agent can distinguish this from volume siblings like GetShortVolume or GetOnBalanceVolume without opening any schema.

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 scopes usage well (exact stock or ETF listing, weekly granularity) and implicitly tells you when it applies, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition. With many volume-adjacent siblings, an explicit routing hint would be needed for a higher score.

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