search_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the search operates on 'locally stored' instruments and matches either symbol or name. However, it does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), case sensitivity, whether partial matches are allowed, or what happens when no match is found.

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 compact sentence that leads with the operation and resource, then adds the search keys. There is no filler, and every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, fully documented in the schema, with no output schema. However, because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., matching instruments, symbols, or identifiers), and it does not. It also omits any precondition such as needing to sync data first, making the description adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, and the schema already describes 'query' as 'Symbol or name fragment, e.g. NVDA or NVIDIA.' The description only repeats 'symbol or name' without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('locally stored instruments') and identifies the search keys (symbol or name). It is clearly distinct from the get_*/sync_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them.

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 phrase 'locally stored' implies this searches cached/local data rather than a remote endpoint, but the description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance about using it to resolve a symbol before calling get_quote/get_bars, or about the relationship with sync_stock.

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