verify_trading_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it usefully declares 'Read-only - credentials are never exposed,' which is real behavioral value. However, it does not disclose whether the check hits the provider API (latency/failure modes) or what happens for a valid-but-untradable symbol.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a compact behavioral note rather than padding.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it. The main gap is sibling differentiation against search_trading_symbols.

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 100%, so both parameters (connection, externalSymbol) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about symbol format, connection scoping, or required permissions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Verify whether a venue symbol exists and is tradable.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_trading_symbols, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_trading_symbols or set_trading_symbol, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer the usage scenario from the purpose sentence alone.

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