get_market_metainfo

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only adds that it returns metadata and field types. This adds some behavioral context but doesn't cover potential rate limits or authentication needs, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: first states the function, second states the use case. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a simple metadata retrieval tool with 3 parameters and existing annotations, the description adequately covers what it does and why. However, there is no output schema, so the description could briefly note the output structure, but it's still sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't add significant new meaning beyond tying them to the overall purpose. The baseline of 3 is correct as the schema already documents each parameter well.

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 retrieves metadata about a TradingView market screener, including available fields and types. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit. It distinguishes from screening tools like 'screen_stocks' by focusing on metadata discovery, although it could more explicitly differentiate from 'list_fields'.

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 says 'Useful for discovering what fields can be used in screening queries,' which implies using it before screening. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools, leaving ambiguity with siblings like 'list_fields' or 'screen_stocks'.

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