get_data_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'status' values mean. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about the response format.

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, clear sentence with 10 words. It is front-loaded and efficient. Could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying 'status'), but overall concise.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but does not specify output structure (e.g., whether it's an array or object). For an agent, this might be sufficient to invoke the tool, but more detail would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('list of all available data sources'), and includes status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve specific data (e.g., get_bond_quotes) by being a meta-list tool.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident: to list all data sources. No specific usage guidelines are given, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only tool for discovering available sources. No exclusions needed.

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