get_market_index_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it details the unified response envelope (success, data, error, tool, metadata), enumerates the exact fields returned, and lists three concrete failure modes (non-trading hours, source unavaidable, missing data). It only omits minor behaviors like possible data latency or cacheing.

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-organized into clear sections (summary, usage example, args, returns, raises), and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first line. The Returns section is verbose, but that length is justified by the absence of an output schema — it substitutes for structured documentation. Every section 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete: it replaces the missing output schema with a field-by-field return breakdown and documents error conditions. The only noticeable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_market_historical_index, but nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 無參數 (no parameters) and shows the exact invocation syntax get_market_index_info(), so there is zero ambiguity about the call contract. No additional parameter semantics could be expected.

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 states a specific verb (取得/retrieve) and a precisely identified resource (發行量加權股價指數, Taiwan's main stock market index), and clarifies it provides 即時資訊 (real-time information). This sufficiently distinguishes it from the sibling get_market_historical_index, which covers historical data. An agent can confidently select this tool for current weighted-index quotes.

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 shows a concrete usage example and states it queries real-time index data, which implies appropriate usage. However, it never names alternatives — notably the sibling get_market_historical_index — or states when NOT to use this tool. Explicit routing such as 'for historical index data use get_market_historical_index' would elevate this.

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