market_watch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a light behavioral hint ('in one call' implying a single-shot bulk read) and says nothing about data freshness/latency, how paging works, or how the default filters (only_traded=true, descending=true) shape the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool immediately and wastes no words; the parenthetical Persian term is useful for domain matching. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so nothing needs cutting.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does not indicate what a result row contains or what 'compact' vs 'full' changes in the response shape, leaving the agent to infer the return payload entirely from schema prose. It does establish scope (whole market, all instruments) correctly, so the gap is moderate rather than fatal.

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 10 optional parameters and 70% schema description coverage, the schema already explains board, market, industry, security_type, sort_by and detail, including examples. The description's 'filter, sort and page' only loosely maps to those parameter families and adds no format, unit, or interaction detail (e.g., how limit interacts with the 700 cap) beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb set (filter, sort, page) and a precise resource (every listed instrument / whole-market screen), plus the Persian domain term دیده‌بان بازار. It is clearly distinct from quote, order_book, or symbol_overview, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as market_snapshot or market_overview, which could also be read as whole-market views.

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?

Usage is implied by 'whole-market screen ... filter, sort and page' (i.e., use this when you need a ranked/filtered list of all symbols rather than a single quote), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 27 siblings. An agent must infer that top_movers or market_snapshot are the narrower choices.

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