get_bist_indices

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (value, change, volume) and the default behavior when indices are omitted. However, it does not mention caching, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling for invalid index codes. For a simple market-data read tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The return values are front-loaded, followed by the default behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the default. The only gap is lack of guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or how errors are handled, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already documents the indices parameter, including examples and the default behavior. The description's mention of the default index list adds a small amount of context but largely repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: returns current value, change, and volume for BIST indices. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_bist_price, which likely targets individual stocks rather than indices, but the resource (indices vs. price) is specific enough for an agent to select correctly.

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 states a default set of indices, which implies usage for quick overview calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_bist_price or get_market_indicators. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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