IPOs and share offerings

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: completed results are newest first, include price band end and volume/value traded, while pipeline results include valuation method, valuer, introduction meeting, offering date, and links.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured around stage choice, next-tool routing, and filter scope. Every sentence adds actionable information with no wasted preamble.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what each stage returns, including sort order and key fields, and describes the follow-on workflow. Pagination and Jalali date syntax are handled by the input schema, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters in detail, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds useful semantics for the stage parameter and clarifies that filters apply only to completed results, but it does not add much about page, date, or offering_type beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List Fara Bourse initial public offerings (IPOs).' It immediately distinguishes finished IPOs from upcoming/under-way ones, giving an agent a clear sense of what this tool returns compared with generic instrument tools.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use stage=pipeline for upcoming IPOs and stage=completed for historical IPOs, and it states that filters apply only to completed results. It also tells the agent to take the symbol onward to ifb_search, then ifb_instrument or ifb_quote.

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