Security Static Info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and safe. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (list of fields) and special routing for certain crypto symbols, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields, and the second adds a crucial special-case note. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and special behavior for specific symbols. Missing details like error handling for invalid symbols are not critical for the core functionality.

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 input schema has one parameter 'symbols' with a clear description. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond stating it takes security symbols. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description meets the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Get static info for securities.' It lists specific fields returned per symbol and differentiates from siblings by specifying it provides static, non-time-varying data. The mention of special handling for .BKKT and .HAS/.OSL symbols further clarifies the scope.

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 gives clear context for using the tool (to retrieve static security info) and includes a when-not case for .BKKT symbols with US accounts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for .BKKT crypto or contrast with siblings like 'company' or 'quote', leaving some ambiguity.

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