get_reference_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it partially delivers: naming BLPAPI ReferenceDataRequest and the BDP() equivalent tells an agent this is a read-only lookup with familiar semantics, and the overrides example hints at request customization. However, it says nothing about rate limits, entitlement/permission failures, or behavior when a ticker or field is invalid — meaningful gaps for a networked data tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the argument list, and the Args section is tight with no filler. The wrapper prose around 'Args:' is slightly boilerplate but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the parameter documentation plus the API/BDP anchoring give an agent enough to call this correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid tickers, field entitlements, request size limits) for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters is documented with concrete examples — ticker format ('IBM US Equity', 'SPX Index'), field mnemonics ('PX_LAST', 'NAME', 'CUR_MKT_CAP'), and an override key/value ('BEST_FPERIOD_OVERRIDE': '1FY'). It does not explain whether securities/fields are capped in count or how missing fields are reported, which holds it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Current/static data for one or more securities') and scopes it by naming the underlying API (BLPAPI ReferenceDataRequest) and the Excel equivalent BDP(). An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_historical_data, get_intraday_bars, and get_intraday_ticks by the 'current/static' qualifier.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'current/static' framing suggests this is for point-in-time snapshots rather than time series, which gestures toward the historical/intraday siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus search_fields, search_instruments, or get_historical_data, and no prerequisites are given.

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