check_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the tool returns 'full record, pending corporate actions, and affected open order count', implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only, permissions, or side effects.

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 purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input from output). Still highly efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic return elements (full record, pending actions, order count). However, it lacks details on input constraints (e.g., mutual exclusivity, required fields) and potential error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning by mentioning 'symbol or CUSIP'. But it does not clarify that they are mutually exclusive or how they relate. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Look up a symbol or CUSIP. Returns full record, pending corporate actions, and affected open order count.' This specific verb and resource, along with the return details, distinguish it from siblings like load_ticker or update_ticker.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a symbol or CUSIP is available, but does not mention exclusions or when to use other lookup tools like load_ticker.

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