Calc Indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds that the tool returns per-symbol index values and lists defaults. However, it does not disclose any limits, performance characteristics, or potential errors (e.g., invalid symbols). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 remarkably concise—two sentences that cover purpose, input, optionality, defaults, and output. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: input, optional parameter with defaults, and expected output shape (per-symbol values). It does not detail the output structure (e.g., object keys), but that is acceptable without an output schema. Could mention error handling or performance, but not critical for agent use.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the default set of indexes when the parameter is omitted or empty, which goes beyond the schema's default of []. This helps the agent understand behavior without inspecting the schema closely.

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 calculates financial indexes for symbols. It provides a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('indexes for symbols'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'quote' or 'valuation'. However, the term 'indexes' could be more precisely defined as financial metrics/ratios, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explains that symbols are required and indexes are optional with a detailed default behavior. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'quote' for single values, 'financial_report' for deeper data). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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