list_ipos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the data returns. For an 11-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity.

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 (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how to interpret parameters, or any behavioral aspects. For a data retrieval tool with many filtering options, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 but doesn't. It mentions 'upcoming or historical IPOs' which hints at the ipo_status and listing_date parameters, but provides no details about parameter meanings, formats, or relationships. With 11 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'upcoming or historical IPOs', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_tickers, list_dividends, etc.) beyond specifying the IPO domain, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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., list_tickers, list_dividends), there's no indication of when IPO data is specifically needed or what distinguishes this tool from other data retrieval tools in the server.

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