Tool / Provider Map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load, and it discloses the key traits: no upstream requests (so it is free/offline and safe to call liberally), plus the vocabulary of the returned source labels. It stops short of covering auth requirements or whether the map is static or changes at runtime.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns followed by the agent-facing use case. Every clause earns its place, including the no-upstream-requests caveat.

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?

This is a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, so the return shape is already covered by structured data. Purpose, use case, source-label semantics, and cost profile are all present; nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema is self-explanatory and the description does not waste words restating it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List every tool, which providers back it, and how it is cross-checked') and implicitly separates itself from every sibling, all of which fetch market data rather than metadata. An agent can tell this is the registry/introspection tool without opening the schema.

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 names a concrete use case: an agent that needs to know whether a capability is dual-sourced (BOTH), single-sourced (TRADINGVIEW/FINVIZ), or single-provider analysis. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for the opposite case.

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