get_market_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists some output fields, but does not disclose additional behaviors like data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists specific metrics efficiently. There is no wasted text.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the included metrics (IV rank, IV percentile, etc.). It covers the main use case of retrieving multiple metrics for symbols. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds 'for one or more symbols' matching the parameter's purpose. The schema itself already describes the 'symbols' parameter with an example. The description does not add new semantics beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'market metrics', and specifies the scope 'for one or more symbols'. It also lists specific metrics like IV rank, IV percentile, etc., providing a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_option_chain or search_equities.

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. The description implies it is for retrieving market metrics, but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions compared to sibling tools such as get_positions or get_balances.

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