Market Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a default CIK but fails to disclose behaviors like handling of multiple results, error conditions, rate limits, or data freshness. Only basic behavior is implied.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Effectively front-loaded with the core action and default, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking output schema and annotations, the description provides enough for basic understanding. However, it omits return format or structure of 13F filings, leaving gaps for an agent. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter strings. The description adds minor context (default explanation and institution search purpose), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves institutional investor 13F SEC filings using CIK or institution name, with a default. This verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_market_indices.

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 implies usage for querying institutional holdings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage context is clear but without comparative direction.

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?

No annotations, so description carries burden. Specifies data source (FRED) and a fixed set of indices, implying read-only behavior. Lacks details on update frequency or limitations.

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?

Extremely concise: single sentence plus a list. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Lists returned indices but no output schema; could describe return structure (e.g., timestamps, numeric values). Acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Zero parameters; baseline 4. No additional parameter info needed since none exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets major market indices and macro indicators, listing specific ones (S&P 500, NASDAQ, VIX, etc.). Differentiates from siblings which involve holdings and stock quotes.

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?

Implies use for broad market data; no explicit alternatives but context suggests not for individual stocks or holdings. Could be improved with direct comparisons.

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 is the sole source of behavioral information. It states 'real-time stock price quotes', implying a read-only operation with no destructive effects. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior, which is a moderate gap for a data retrieval tool.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's action and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly) to improve scanability.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lists key returned fields but does not cover edge cases (e.g., invalid symbols, network errors) or specify the response format. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the output structure would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'one or more symbols' and the returned fields, but the schema already documents the parameters fully (e.g., comma-separated symbols, exchange filter). No extra semantic value is provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'real-time stock price quotes', and specifies the returned fields (price, % change, 52-week high/low, exchange, currency). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_institutional_holdings' and 'get_market_indices' by focusing on individual stock quotes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between this and alternatives like 'get_institutional_holdings' or 'get_market_indices'.

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