Get global markets overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' tail is partly redundant. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: daily closes with live intraday index levels while markets are open, per-row historyCode for follow-up calls, and the default section set. It does not discuss size/latency of returning everything, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 the core claim, then the payload inventory, then use cases and freshness. The opening sentence is very long with embedded parenthetical tickers, but every clause conveys coverage information an agent needs to pick this over a narrower sibling.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names what each of the nine sections contains and the data freshness. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing given the 0-required-parameter, all-defaults schema.

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% and the `sections` enum is documented in more detail in the schema than in the description, so the schema carries the burden. The description restates the section families and the default omission of news/us_housing, which is mildly useful but largely duplicative; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Bullrun's Global Markets dashboard in one call') and then enumerates the exact contents — indices, policy rates, 16 sovereign yields, 20 FX pairs, commodities, macro tiles, calendar, news, housing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_macro_indicators, get_macro_history, or get_country_macro, which each cover a single slice.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('how are markets doing today', 'what's the macro backdrop', 'what's on the calendar this week', morning briefing) and routes drill-down to get_macro_history via the per-row historyCode. No explicit 'when not to use' for the narrow indicator tools, but the 'in one call' framing implies the breadth tradeoff.

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