Get Symbol Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns price, market data, and asset information, which is partly redundant with the output schema and does not disclose extra behavioral traits such as caching, freshness, or data-source limitations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first but does add concrete return-content details, so it earns its place mostly.

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 simple, read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, the large sibling set creates ambiguity — especially with get_market_data_for_asset — and the description does not clarify the distinction, so an agent cannot confidently select it over similar tools.

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%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions with examples. The description does not add meaningful constraints, formats, or domain-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get symbol data for a specific asset from a data source,' and the second sentence adds what is included: current price, market data, asset information. It is clear on its own but does not differentiate it from siblings such as get_market_data_for_asset or get_historical_data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_data_for_asset, lookup_symbols, get_asset_profile, or get_historical_data. The description only restates what the tool does, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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