get_market_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that only structured data is returned, which is a useful constraint, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has rate limits, what failure modes exist, or how the Taiwan-stock process differs behaviorally. This is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. Every clause adds at least some information: the resource, the routing nuance, and the structured-only return constraint. It earns a high conciseness score, though it is arguably too terse to fully compensate for the missing schema context.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide most of the context. It explains the symbol routing and the structured return type, but it does not describe valid periods or intervals, what the structured data contains, or any prerequisites or edge cases. For a tool an agent must invoke correctly, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the symbol parameter by explaining yfinance symbols and numeric codes, but it does not clarify period or interval values, allowed formats, or how defaults behave. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the coverage is insufficient.

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 market data, with a specific distinction between yfinance symbols and numeric codes routed through the Taiwan stock process. This gives a concrete verb and resource, and the Taiwan-stock note helps separate it from more generic sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as analyze_taiwan_stock or get_data_source_status. The only usage signal is the routing rule for numeric codes versus yfinance symbols, which is a helpful condition but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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