tickerbot_list_tickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the universe composition, the distinct behavior of the `tickers` parameter (returns full rows, ignores pagination), and the pagination mechanism. It does not mention rate limits, return format, or what 'active' means, but these are partially covered elsewhere and the description adds substantial context.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: scope, bulk vs paginated behavior, and filter list. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complex listing tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains universe content, two usage modes, pagination, and filters. It does not explicitly describe the response structure or error behavior, but these are often left implicit, and the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the universe scope, the bulk-lookup mode behavior, and the existence of filters like search, asset_type, exchange, sector, and min_market_cap. This helps the agent understand parameter interplay without reading every schema detail.

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 lists active tickers from the Tickerbot universe, specifies the exact scope (~14,500 US equities, US Treasury curve, Fed policy rates, FX, metals, crypto under X:), and distinguishes this from a bulk lookup mode via the `tickers` parameter. It is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticker (singular) and list_universes.

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 clear usage context: 'Use `tickers` for bulk lookup of named symbols... otherwise walks the universe alphabetically with `cursor` pagination.' It also mentions supported filters. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools such as get_ticker for single-symbol lookups, so exclusions are not stated.

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