get_market_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current trading status' which implies real-time or near-real-time data, but doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'status' includes (e.g., open/closed, hours, holidays). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 complexity of financial market data and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trading status' means, what data is returned, how current the information is, or any limitations. With no structured fields to rely on, the description should provide more context for effective tool use.

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 ('params') with 0% description coverage and no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning that parameters are optional (as indicated by required parameters: 0). With 0% schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but since there's only one optional parameter, the baseline remains at 3.

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 as 'Get current trading status of exchanges and financial markets' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trading status of exchanges and financial markets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_holidays' or 'list_futures_market_statuses', which might provide related but different information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_market_holidays', 'list_futures_market_statuses'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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