Security description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide transparency by listing the output fields, but it does not mention any side effects, error behavior, whether data is real-time or delayed, or the possibility of null fields. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned fields without unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and lists the return fields. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only operation or what happens if the ticker is invalid, but this is minor given the low complexity.

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 only parameter (ticker) is fully covered by the schema with a clear description ('Ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Overview for a ticker' and lists the exact fields returned (name, exchange, instrument type, last close, CIK/LEI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like godel_quote (likely real-time price) and godel_financials (financial statements), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description tells the agent this is a general overview tool, so an agent can infer it should be used when basic security info is needed. However, no alternatives are mentioned (e.g., 'use godel_quote for real-time prices'), so the agent must rely on sibling names to differentiate.

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