Trading Days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, and does not contradict them. Score 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal value.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or elaboration. Perfectly 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?

Despite simplicity, the tool is straightforward (3 required params, no nested objects) and annotation coverage is strong. Output schema exists to document return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could hint at the return format (e.g., list of dates).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description merely repeats 'market: HK/US/CN/SG' which is already in the schema. No additional semantics or usage details are provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'trading days', and specifies the scope as markets (HK/US/CN/SG) and a date range. This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like trading_session or market_status.

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 implies when to use (to get trading days) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusion or comparison with siblings like trading_session is given.

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