trading_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: what each mode actually returns (exchange reasons, current supervision status, since-when) and that reasons come back as plain Persian lines, which matters for downstream handling given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a single structured sentence walking the four kinds in order. Dense but every clause carries distinguishing information; the Persian parentheticals are functional, not decoration.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema and a multi-mode tool, the description covers the essential gaps: what each mode returns and the language of the reason strings. It leaves filtering behavior for market/symbol to the schema, which fully documents it, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each 'kind' value semantically contains rather than just naming it — including the Persian source terms. It does not add anything about limit or market beyond the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Opens with a specific resource statement ('Which symbols are halted or flagged') and then enumerates the four modes with concrete content for each. An agent can tell this is the trading-halt/supervision lookup rather than a general market status tool, though it never names a sibling (e.g. market_status or supervisor_messages) to sharpen the boundary.

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 bulk of the description is mode-selection guidance: 'suspended' for halted symbols, 'supervision' for symbols that still trade but are in the suspension process or under caution, 'state_changes' for the market-wide order-entry state log, 'symbol_history' for one symbol's history. That is clear when-to-use-which guidance for the main decision an agent faces, but there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool.

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