market_status_tool

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 that the tool returns status, time, session window, and freshness. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the call is safe. Since it is a read-only status check, the transparency is adequate but could be more explicit about its non-destructive nature.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key question and immediately lists the return fields. Every part is informative, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and key output fields. It could be slightly more detailed on formats or cache behavior, but it is sufficient for a straightforward status check.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is more than just the schema. No parameter details are needed.

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 starts with a clear question 'Is the Tehran market open right now?' which directly states the tool's main use case. It then lists specific return values: open/trading-day status, current Tehran time, session window, and snapshot freshness. This is a specific verb+resource pair, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings which are about filtering, quotes, or history.

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 implies the use case (checking market status) and the output. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or get_price_history. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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