List Stock Exchanges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns ALL exchanges and includes the number of tickers per exchange, which is useful behavioral/return info beyond the annotations, especially with no output schema present.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. It states the verb, object, and key output detail without any filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list endpoint with strong read-only annotations, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns (all exchanges with ticker counts). The absence of an output schema is compensated because the return shape (exchanges with numbers) is directly inferable from the description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than input.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stock exchanges') with scope ('all') and output detail ('number of tickers on each'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for tickers, sectors, industries, and countries.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the naming and description—if you need exchanges with ticker counts, this is the intended tool—but no explicit guidance is provided.

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