Market News

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

Annotations already mark the operation readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is 'latest' and 'market-wide', and because there is no output schema it discloses the response shape (sentiment tag, category, source URL, symbols), which helps set expectations.

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 text is front-loaded with the core purpose, then a purposeful category list, then a one-line routing rule. It is slightly long because of the category enumeration, but every block earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and a complex sibling set, the description covers the returned fields, valid categories, optional filters, and the main alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already describes all 3 optional parameters with 100% coverage, so this dimension starts at the baseline. The description adds meaning by enumerating the full category vocabulary (companies, global, markets, ipo, etc.) and specifying sentiment values in the first sentence, going beyond the schema's examples.

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 states a concrete action ('Get latest market-wide news') and a clear resource scope ('across all categories'), then lists the returned article fields. It explicitly contrasts with stock-specific news, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like get_stock_events or get_stock_news without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction ('Use this for broad market news') and a named alternative for the excluded case ('For stock-specific news, use get_stock_events with type 'news' instead'), which is the exact routing guidance an agent needs.

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