finance_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior fully. It mentions the data included in each mode (indices, breadth, sectors, etc.), but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, staleness of data, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 well-structured with clear bullet points and examples. It is somewhat lengthy, but each line adds value. Could be slightly more concise by grouping similar modes.

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 6 parameters (all optional) and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and return data for each mode. However, it omits explanations for several parameters (date, type, limit, sort_by) and does not specify default values or constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'include' and 'sector' via examples, but fails to describe 'date', 'type', 'limit', and 'sort_by'. This leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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 'Get market data' and enumerates multiple modes (overview, sectors, funds, valuation, macro). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like finance_fund and finance_stock by focusing on broad market metrics rather than individual securities.

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 concrete invocation examples for each mode, showing how to use the 'include' and 'sector' parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare use cases with sibling tools.

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