resolve-symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what happens on ambiguous or unresolvable input, whether channel/asset_class inference occurs, or what a success vs failure response looks like. 'Free-form' hints at fuzzy matching but no failure semantics are disclosed.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given four parameters and no annotations.

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?

Four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 75% of parameters undocumented in the schema. For a normalization tool with ambiguity resolution at its core, the description leaves too much unsaid for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only 25% (only asset_class is documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that `symbols` is a list of unnormalized strings, what `channel` filters, or what the `ambiguous` enum values (all/error/first) actually do — that explanation lives only in the schema $defs, not the tool description.

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?

Specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('free-form symbol inputs' -> 'canonical catalog symbols'), so the transformation is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as search_symbols, catalog-symbols, or list_symbols, leaving the agent unsure which symbol tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_symbols or catalog-symbols, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer that this is the normalization step rather than a search/listing step.

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