run_premarket_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking various components but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only diagnostic, if it triggers any actions (e.g., auto-fixing issues), what permissions are required, or how results are presented. The term 'Flagship' suggests importance but lacks operational clarity.

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, efficient sentence that lists all key components of the health check without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (comprehensive health check) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines what areas are checked but doesn't explain the return format, severity levels, or actionable insights. For a diagnostic tool in a trading context, more detail on output expectations would be helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, maintaining a baseline score for tools with no parameters.

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 performs a 'pre-market health check' with specific components (sessions, corp actions, stuck orders, SLA deadlines, validation summary). It uses a specific verb ('Flagship') and identifies the resource (pre-market health), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_fix_sessions' or 'check_ticker' that might cover overlapping areas.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_fix_sessions', 'check_ticker', 'validate_orders', and 'release_stuck_orders' that might handle specific aspects of the health check, there's no indication of when this comprehensive check is preferred over targeted tools or what prerequisites might exist.

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