list_tickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a query operation, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits might apply, what the return format looks like, or whether it supports pagination. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the scope across asset classes.

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?

For a tool with 13 completely undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is woefully inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters work together, what the typical use cases are, or how it differs from similar tools. The single sentence description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description provides no information about any of the 13 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage (titles like 'Active', 'Cik', 'Date' are generic and unhelpful), the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, how they filter results, or what values they accept. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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: 'Query supported ticker symbols across stocks, indices, forex, and crypto.' It specifies the verb ('Query') and resource ('ticker symbols') with scope across multiple asset classes. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'list_quotes' that might also involve ticker-related operations.

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 like 'get_ticker_details', 'list_quotes', and 'get_snapshot_ticker', there's no indication of when this list_tickers tool is appropriate versus those other ticker-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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