index_list_dates

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only guarantees, output format, pagination, or rate limits. The tool implies a simple listing operation, but the description fails to specify what the return data represents or how 'request type' affects results.

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 concise sentence, efficient in length. The '[FREE]' prefix is somewhat extraneous but not harmful. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though the ambiguous 'by request type' could be removed for better clarity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should explain what the returned dates mean, how 'request type' factors in, and what symbols are valid. It does none of this, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 fully documents the 'symbol' parameter with a descriptive explanation. However, the tool description mentions 'by request type' but the schema has no such parameter, creating a mismatch that could mislead an agent into expecting a request type argument. This reduces the semantic clarity beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'available data dates for an index', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_list_dates or option_list_dates. However, the phrase 'by request type' introduces an ambiguous concept that is not represented in the parameter schema, slightly muddying the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_list_dates or index_list_symbols. The '[FREE]' prefix hints at cost but does not clarify usage context or exclusions.

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