get_market_status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description meets a minimal baseline without contradiction.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful despite the structured data, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage with one optional parameter ('params') that is loosely defined. The description adds no parameter information, not explaining what 'params' might include or how to use it. With high schema coverage, this would be baseline 3, but here the schema is vague, and the description doesn't compensate, keeping it at a minimal score.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current trading status of exchanges and financial markets'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_market_holidays' or 'list_futures_market_statuses', which might cover overlapping concepts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to market data (e.g., 'get_market_holidays', 'list_futures_market_statuses'), there's no indication of scope differences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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