get_trade_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Markdown table') and the meaning of 'is_trading_day' values, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors (e.g., invalid date formats), leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for arguments and returns, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the core functionality and some parameters but misses details on 'limit' and 'format', and lacks behavioral context like error handling. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for reliable agent operation.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters with format details and defaults, and implies the output structure. However, it doesn't cover 'limit' or 'format' parameters, which are in the schema but undocumented in the description, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Fetch trading dates within a specified range.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and identifies the resource ('trading dates'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_last_n_trading_days' or 'is_trading_day', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 many sibling tools related to trading dates (e.g., 'get_last_n_trading_days', 'is_trading_day', 'get_month_end_trading_dates'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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