Sector Pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by noting that close ranks exist only before 2026-07-31, daily data starts 2026-07-21, intraday data starts 2026-08-19, data is never backfilled, and a Sector API key is required. This is substantive context beyond a basic read operation.

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 compact and information-dense, with the primary use case front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds useful detail, including data availability, backfill behavior, and authentication requirements.

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?

The description covers the main output types, availability windows, and authentication needs, which is strong given there is no output schema. The daily output fields are described, but the intraday row structure is left vague. Still, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the date format and the meaning of intraday. The description mostly restates the intraday behavior rather than adding new parameter-specific detail. It does clarify the output context around the parameters, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 returns a daily close record for one date, including rank, % move, and breadth per sector, or 5-minute intraday rows when intraday=true. It is specific about the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_roster and get_sectors.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for sector history on a single date, either daily close data or 5-minute intraday data. It also specifies availability start dates and the backfill policy, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a sibling tool instead.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It mentions 'immutable' and 'versioned', implying a read-only historical retrieval. It clearly indicates the behavior of returning historical snapshots when a version is supplied, though it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no modifications).

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—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words 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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns (ticker lists) and the versioning concept. It lacks an explicit output schema, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 'version' is fully described in both the schema ('Archived roster version; omit for current') and the tool description ('pass a version to see exactly what a basket contained at that time'). The semantics are unambiguous and complete.

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 returns ticker lists (roster) behind sector baskets, with versioning support. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_history and get_sectors.

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 explains when to pass the version parameter ('to see exactly what a basket contained at that time') and when to omit it ('for current'). It also notes the API key requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: it is free, requires no key, and returns the same data as the public board. It does not mention rate limits, freshness delays, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read operation these are minor gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource and current-time scope, then lists the exact metrics, and closes with cost and access information.

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 parameterless, read-only snapshot tool, the description covers what is returned, the scope, and access requirements. It could be more complete by addressing how the result relates to get_history or get_roster, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 baseline is 4 and there is little to document. The description adds a relevant note that no key is needed, which clarifies the expected call requirements beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource ('all 30 Sector Pulse baskets') and states exactly what data is returned: average % move, median, breadth, and three rank bases. It is specific and informative, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches' and does not directly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_history or get_roster. 'Right now' implies a current snapshot, but the description never names alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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