Search AI trading tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are short summaries, which is useful. However it doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit, or result ordering, so it adds only modestly beyond 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, with the routing to get_tool in the second. No wasted words.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering two of three parameters. The absence of an output schema means the return format is only loosely described ('short summaries'), leaving some inference to the agent.

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 coverage is 67%; query and category are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces semantics by describing the return type but adds no new parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (the TradingAgentStack directory), and enumerates the content types it covers. An agent can immediately tell it apart from get_tool and list_categories.

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 states the alternative: 'use get_tool for full details', establishing the summary-vs-detail split. It also directs the category filter to list_categories. Clear when-to-use-this vs siblings.

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