tickerbot_get_ticker_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool's role as an 'honesty endpoint' and clarifies it reports coverage rather than filling gaps. It adds context about limitations and edge cases. A minor gap is that it doesn't state read-only or side-effect safety, but it's implied and the description is quite transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every clause adds value, including the em-dash elaboration and the concrete examples. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the report returns (intervals, columns, start time, depth) and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the exact response format, but given the simplicity, it is very complete.

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 input schema already describes 'ticker' as a symbol, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does tie the parameter to the tool's purpose. Given the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 produces a data-coverage report for one ticker, enumerating what it covers: intervals, columns, time range, and depth. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker_bars or get_ticker_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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool: before assuming a data gap is an outage, to check if data was ever covered. It also provides examples of edge cases (sub-hour bars, fundamentals on non-equities), making the usage context very clear.

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