IPO Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds value by listing the return structure (profile, timeline, eligibility, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with one sentence listing fields. While clear, it could be structured better (e.g., bullet points or separation of return fields) for readability, but it remains 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?

No output schema exists, so description correctly details return fields. It covers key aspects of IPO detail (profile, timeline, eligibility, etc.), making it complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., market inference from symbol suffix) but does not significantly improve understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it shows IPO detail for a symbol and lists the specific fields returned (profile, timeline, eligibility, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ipo_calendar or ipo_subscriptions by focusing on detailed per-symbol information.

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 vs alternatives like ipo_calendar or ipo_listed. The context of sibling tools implies it's for detailed info on a specific symbol, but absence of when-not or alternatives lowers the score.

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