get_trading_status

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

The 'readOnlyHint: true' annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('Т-Инвестиций'), but lacks details about what trading status values mean (e.g., 'normal_trading', 'auction', 'suspended') or caching behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is minimally sufficient.

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?

Description is a single efficient sentence front-loaded with the core action. While appropriately brief for a simple read operation, it borders on underspecified—one additional sentence explaining the status semantics would improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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 this is a single-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the description adequately covers the basics. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally clarify what constitutes 'trading status' (enumeration values, meaning of different states) to prepare the agent for interpreting results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'tickers' parameter documented as 'Массив тикеров'. The tool description does not add examples, format specifications (e.g., 'TCSG' vs 'TCSG.MM'), or explain the 1-50 item limit. At 100% schema coverage, baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves 'trading status' (статус торгов) by ticker from T-Investments, providing specific verb and resource. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_trading_schedules'—users cannot determine whether this returns current market state (e.g., active/suspended) versus calendar schedule information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trading_schedules' or 'get_last_prices'. There is no mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or specific scenarios where trading status is needed versus other market data tools.

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