IPO Subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying the return data structure (fields like symbol, name, market, dates). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentence that efficiently states the purpose and the return schema. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the listed fields), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns and for which markets, though it could mention if there are any limits or pagination, which is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 lists IPO stocks in subscription/pre-filing stage for HK and US markets, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ipo_calendar, ipo_detail, and ipo_listed by specifying the stage and markets.

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 indicates when to use (for pre-filing IPO stocks in HK and US) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools. However, it provides enough context for an agent to differentiate from similar tools.

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