Search markets catalog

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the return type is 'headlines, not article text,' the catalog scope is enumerated, and 'recent' signals time-bounded results. This is more behavioral detail than typical read-only search tools provide.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact catalog list, then examples, then a boundary statement on return type. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no filler or repetition of annotation or schema 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?

Given the tool's modest complexity (2 params, 1 required), a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete enough. It states purpose, scope, acceptable query examples, the return boundary (headlines not article text), and even hints at linkage to company_fundamentals. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without needing additional detail.

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 50%: the limit parameter is fully described in the schema, but query has no schema description. The description compensates by listing concrete example queries ('bitcoin', 'gold', 'nvidia', 'inflation') and the acceptable catalog domains, which materially clarifies what can go into the query parameter. It does not need to restate limit semantics, as the schema already covers that.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource: 'Find symbols in Nomina's catalog and recent headlines for an asset, company or topic.' It enumerates the catalog contents and example queries, making it clear this is a search/discovery tool. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like research_asset and company_fundamentals by framing results as catalog matches plus headlines, not analysis or fundamentals 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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need symbols or recent headlines for a covered asset/company/topic. The parenthetical 'for company_fundamentals' explicitly connects search results to one sibling tool. However, it does not name alternatives like research_asset or market_overview or state when not to use them, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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