get_markets_breakdown

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it notes the data is daily, breaks down by investor type, and mentions a 'Premium' plan restriction. No contradiction with annotations.

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-structured with a purpose paragraph, a return-value paragraph, and a bulleted args list. It is clear and not overly verbose for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not specify default behavior when all optional parameters are omitted, nor does it differentiate from sibling get_equities_investor_types. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining code format (5 digits, 4-digit matches ordinary shares) and date format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD). This adds enough meaning 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 clearly states the tool retrieves market breakdown data (sell/buy by investor type per issue), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_equities_investor_types by focusing on per-issue breakdown.

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 argument formats and a plan note, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not guided.

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