market_today

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does it thoroughly: it discloses that lists are sorted only by measured numbers, that AlphaDesk scores/recommends nothing, that percentage screens skew to small names, that sections without vendor data appear as 'unavailable' with reasons, and that headlines are untrusted publisher input with source and feeds identified. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but information-dense, with front-loaded purpose and structured lists. Every sentence adds value, covering scope, sorting behavior, caveats, security, and fallback for missing data. It could be slightly more compact but earns its length.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return contents and sorting logic. It also covers edge cases (unavailable sections, untrusted input). The only missing detail is clarification of the 'top' parameter, which is minor given its default. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly without further information.

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 single parameter 'top' (integer, default 10) is not described in the description. Its meaning is somewhat self-evident as a limit on the number of items per list, but the description doesn't explicitly state that. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated, but the parameter is simple enough that the gap is minor.

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's purpose: 'Today's market in one call' and enumerates the specific content included (tape, gainers, losers, sector funds, news symbols, earnings, economic releases). It differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the first tool for 'what's trending' queries and explicitly pointing to alternatives (symbol_news, quote, key_stats) for deeper single-symbol analysis.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use it first for...' with concrete example queries, and states when to use other tools ('For more on one symbol use symbol_news, quote or key_stats'). It also warns about the skew of gainers/losers and advises how to present results, which helps the agent decide when to use it.

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