get_provider_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and lists what it does not expose (account IDs, credentials, bridge URLs). However, it does not mention rate limits or other behavioral constraints.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence provides the core purpose and return fields, while the second adds important privacy and read-only information. No unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields (connection state, MarketDataStatus code, feed type, diagnostics ID, last-updated). However, it does not describe the structure or types of these fields, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description effectively describes what the tool returns, adding context beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns status information for IBKR connector and market-data provider, listing specific fields (connection state, MarketDataStatus code, feed type, diagnostics ID, last-updated). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_candles' and 'get_chart_context' which serve entirely different purposes.

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 implies usage for checking status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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