get_market_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trading activity indicators' but doesn't explain what these are, how data is retrieved (e.g., real-time vs. cached), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about operational 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating version info or adding brief context. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 the complexity of a market data tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., data format, included fields), behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness), and differentiation from siblings. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 7 parameters (e.g., filters, pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'trading activity indicators' might relate to the 'activity_level' enum. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve market data for stamps with trading activity indicators'. It specifies the resource (market data for stamps) and includes a version reference (v2.3 feature). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stamp_market_data' or 'get_recent_sales', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to stamps and market data (e.g., get_stamp_market_data, get_recent_sales, search_stamps), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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