Market Data Feeds

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: feeds are market-wide, scoped to 'today', and each feed is described with its focus and interpretation, e.g., 'Rising = bullish leverage, falling = deleveraging.' It does not go into pagination or response shape, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: each bullet maps one enum value to a concrete and useful explanation. The opening sentence and routing sentence keep the structure tight, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-enum-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it lists all possible values, explains what each returns, and points to sibling tools for adjacent use cases. The only small ambiguity is whether dataset is truly required, but the param-level 'REQUIRED' and 'Pass dataset to choose' make the intent clear.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the simple enum list. Each dataset value is expanded with the fields it returns (e.g., deals includes 'deal type, symbol, client name, buy/sell, qty, price, value') and interpretive guidance, which is exactly what an agent needs to select the correct enum.

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 one of today's market-wide data feeds'—and enumerates the seven feed choices with concrete content for each. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming market_valuations, market_heatmap, and get_stock_deals as alternatives for related but different 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?

The final sentence gives explicit routing guidance: use market_valuations for index PE/PB history, market_heatmap for index heatmaps, and get_stock_deals for a single stock's deal history. This tells the agent exactly when not to use this tool and which alternative to pick.

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