listing_symbols_by_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get stock symbols in a market group' and does not reveal defaults for group/source, output structure, or any read-only assumptions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or response 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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence that captures the core functionality without superfluous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, delivering the essential purpose immediately.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of a full input schema with parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, which are important for selecting it correctly among siblings, so it falls short of a higher completeness score.

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% for both parameters (group and source), including defaults and example values. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 tool retrieves stock symbols for a market group. The verb 'get' plus resource 'stock symbols' and qualifier 'market group' distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing_symbols_by_exchange and listing_all_symbols, which focus on exchange or all symbols respectively.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the group-based categorization versus exchange-based listing, nor any prerequisites or fallback scenarios. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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