Add Market Data Points

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

The description goes beyond annotations by spelling out the overwrite rule ('Same (symbol, date) overwrites the existing point') and the idempotency consequence ('passing the same input twice yields the same end state'). This aligns with idempotentHint=true and adds practical knowledge about effects on previously stored values. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds a distinct fact: scope, endpoint, and repeated-call behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 fully described input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the operation, scope, and repeated-call semantics. The MANUAL-only data source constraint is not in the description text but is covered in the schema, so nothing essential is missing. Explicit routing guidance versus read siblings would push this to a 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by establishing the (symbol, date) tuple as the uniqueness key and by clarifying that multiple market data points can be passed in one call. This semantic linkage goes beyond the schema's syntactic descriptions.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('market data points for a specific asset'), and the second sentence disambiguates the exact endpoint and keying ('symbol, date'). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_market_data_for_asset.

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 implies the tool is for writing/upserting market data points and notes that repeated calls are idempotent, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving routing mostly to the name and context.

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