Market & Symbol Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: states returned data categories per shape, notes 'Lightweight; no kNN' for the object form, and clarifies data freshness constraints implicitly. No contradictions with 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?

Structure is clear with a heading and bullet-like list, but the description is verbose, especially for the 'object' shape. Some redundancy exists in listing 'sector' and 'cap' across shapes. Could be tighter without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with no schema description and an output schema (not shown), the description covers input usage exhaustively. It defines all four target variants and their implications. Missing a brief note on output format, but output schema handles that. Adequate for the complexity level.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'target' parameter, leaving it completely opaque. The description fully compensates by explaining the four accepted shapes, their structure, and example values, making the parameter semantics crystal clear.

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?

Clearly states it provides 'Situational data about a target' and enumerates four distinct shapes (market, SYMBOL, object, system) each returning specific domain data. Differentiates from sibling tools like symbol_intelligence by focusing on market regime and anchor metadata rather than just ticker fundamentals.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each target shape and what each returns (e.g., 'market' for sector rotation, 'SYMBOL' for ticker metadata). Provides context for selection but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with siblings like 'symbol_intelligence' or 'anchor_fetch'.

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