get_stamp_market_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed market data' includes (e.g., pricing, trends, availability). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 states the core purpose and includes a version note. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words. However, the version note 'v2.3 feature' could be considered slightly extraneous if not critical for usage, but it doesn't significantly detract from conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed market data' returns, potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with siblings offering similar data, more context is needed to understand its role and output. The version note adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'stamp_id' documented as 'The ID of the stamp to get market data for'. The description doesn't elaborate on ID format, examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed market data for a specific stamp'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_market_data' (likely general) and 'get_stamp' (likely basic info) by specifying 'detailed market data' and 'specific stamp', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The version note 'v2.3 feature' adds context but doesn't affect core purpose clarity.

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 siblings like 'get_market_data' (possibly broader market data), 'get_stamp' (likely general stamp info), and 'get_recent_sales' (possibly sales-focused data), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. The version note implies it's for newer features but doesn't help choose between tools.

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