get_market_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is sorted by date descending and lists the types, but does not explicitly declare whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about safety.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence defining the tool and the second providing usage examples. It is front-loaded, has zero unnecessary words, and earns every sentence.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage examples, and parameter hints. It lists all signal types and common queries. However, it could improve by briefly describing the output structure (e.g., each result has a type, date, company) since there is no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical usage hints for the 'days' parameter (e.g., 'Use 7 for this week') and lists the possible values for 'type', but most parameter descriptions in the schema are already self-explanatory. The description adds marginal value beyond the 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?

The description starts with a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('Market Intelligence Feed'), listing 10 exact signal types. It distinguishes from sibling tools by offering a unified stream of multiple event types, which is unique among the many tool names for individual signals like get_insider_trades or get_technical_signals.

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 explicit example queries ('what happened on the NZX today/this week?', 'any golden crosses?') and parameter hints ('Use 7 for 'this week', 1 for 'today''). It implies when to use (broad overview) vs. individual sibling tools, but lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternatives.

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