get_market_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that all indicators arrive in a single call ('tek çağrıda') and that it is a read-style data retrieval, but it omits auth requirements, data freshness/update frequency, and any failure behavior.

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 tightly written sentences: the returned contents are front-loaded and the analysis purpose follows immediately. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably well by enumerating the exact indicators returned, so an agent knows what to expect. It falls short only on not disambiguating against the overlapping macro/bond siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible here.

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 gives a specific verb ('döndürür') and resource ('makro piyasa göstergeleri'), and enumerates the exact contents (VIX, US 13w/5/10/30y yields, DXY). That enumeration partially distinguishes it, but it never names or contrasts with the close sibling get_macro_indicators (or get_gov_bond_yields), so an agent cannot be fully sure which tool to pick.

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?

It states a use context ('piyasa risk iştahı ve getiri eğrisi analizi için'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to overlapping siblings such as get_macro_indicators, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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