market_tape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return shape and content, making clear this is a read-style data tool, but it does not disclose ordering, number of items, update frequency, or any other runtime behavior.

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 two tight phrases: the scope is front-loaded, and the return shape is given in one compact line. Every element earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 zero-argument tool with an available output schema and a simple return shape, the description is nearly complete. It provides the key conceptual context and return format, though it could slightly expand on what 'levels' includes or how current the data is.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully describes the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 names a specific resource and scope: index, rate, commodity, and crypto levels, and identifies the tool as the top-of-terminal strip. It is clearly distinguished from asset-specific tools like index_board or crypto_movers, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 phrase 'top-of-terminal strip' implies a real-time overview use case, and the asset-class list communicates breadth. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like market_today, quotes, or index_board, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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