explain_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'when available' for views, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The word 'Get' implies safe reads, but this is not explicitly disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the second adds parameter nuance without fluff.

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 an output schema handles return values, the description covers purpose and the optional view. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over siblings and does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., view availability criteria). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the optional 'view' parameter (selects alternate explanation view) and implies 'ticker' is the symbol via 'a ticker's current regime'. However, it does not provide enumerated or format details for 'ticker', which is mostly self-explanatory.

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 provides a 'deterministic narrative interpretation' of a ticker's regime and positioning, a plain-language read. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker_state, which likely returns raw state data.

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 gives context (use for plain-language state interpretation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_ticker_state. No exclusions or sibling references are provided, leaving the 'when-not' unclear.

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