resolve_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by naming the source, SEC EDGAR, and listing the returned identifiers, but it does not describe behavior for ambiguous matches, not-found cases, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted text. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, followed by the data source.

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?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It adequately covers the input and output identifiers, though it omits edge-case behavior for ambiguous or invalid queries.

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 clarify the single parameter, and it does: 'query' accepts either a ticker (with examples MSFT, BRK.B) or a company name. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema, though it does not specify case sensitivity or ambiguity handling.

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, 'Resolve', and clearly states the resource: a ticker or company name mapped to SEC CIK, exchange, and SIC industry code. It is precise enough that an agent can distinguish this lookup tool from sibling tools like get_price_history or list_filings.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for converting a ticker or company name into SEC identifiers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides the same resolution capability, so the context is sufficient.

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