list_tickers

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 context about the scope ('across stocks, indices, forex, and crypto') which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'supported' means in practice. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering/sorting capabilities, the meaning of 'supported' symbols, or how parameters interact. For a query tool with many filtering options, users need more guidance on how to construct effective queries.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool has 13 parameters. The description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'type', 'market', 'exchange', 'cusip', 'cik', 'date', 'search', 'active', 'sort', 'order', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect the query. With high parameter count and zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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: 'Query supported ticker symbols across stocks, indices, forex, and crypto.' It specifies the verb ('Query') and resource ('ticker symbols') with scope across multiple asset classes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'get_ticker_types', which prevents a perfect score.

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 available (e.g., 'get_ticker_details', 'get_ticker_types', 'list_quotes'), there's no indication of when this list/query tool is appropriate versus more specific tools. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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