market_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait ('Holiday/early-close-aware') and mentions the output concepts (status, next open/close time). However, it omits details such as timezone handling, whether the status is real-time or scheduled, and how market closures are determined. These gaps would require the agent to infer behavior.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's core function. It is concise and contains no filler or redundant information, every word contributing to understanding.

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 utility with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and key behaviors. It tells the agent what to expect (status, next open/close time, holiday awareness) without needing to detail return values because the output schema handles that. Slight room for improvement exists, such as specifying timezone or update behavior, but it is largely complete.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds meaning about what the returned status conveys, but there are no parameters to explain. The empty schema requires no special parameter semantics; the description's mention of NYSE and next open/close time provides sufficient context for invocation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing NYSE market status with holiday/early-close awareness and next open/close times. It uses specific terms ('Holiday/early-close-aware', 'NYSE status', 'next open/close time') that distinguish it from siblings like market_snapshot or trading_calendar, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the agent needs NYSE market status or upcoming trading times, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like trading_calendar or market_snapshot. No exclusions or alternate tool references are provided, so guidance is only inferred from the purpose.

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