Market Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get'), the selection mechanism (CIK or institution name), and a default value. However, it does not mention what happens if both parameters are provided, the return format, or any access limitations, so transparency is moderate. Score 3.

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 a single concise sentence with a second clarifying sentence about the default. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Score 5.

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 simple getter with two optional parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's function. Since there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward data retrieval tool. Score 4.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully, including a default for cik, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond repeating that the tool accepts CIK or institution name. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'institutional investor 13F SEC filings'. It specifies the key parameters (CIK or institution name) and includes a default, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_indices, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 the tool is used to retrieve 13F filings for a given CIK or institution, which provides clear context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks explicit usage guidance. Thus a score of 3.

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by naming the data source (FRED), but it does not mention response format, update frequency, rate limits, or any other traits. The simple getter nature is clear, but additional context would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the source. Every word earns its place, delivering maximum information in minimal space.

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-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it lists all expected data items and the source. It could optionally note whether data is real-time or delayed, but that is not critical for basic usage.

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 imposes no burden. The description compensates by listing the specific indicators returned, giving the agent a clear idea of what the output covers. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and explicitly lists the resources (S&P 500, NASDAQ, VIX, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_quotes (individual stock prices) and get_institutional_holdings (holdings 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 implies its use case by enumerating macro indicators and indices, which differentiates it from stock-specific queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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, the description must convey the tool's behavioral profile. It discloses the returned data (price, % change, 52-week high/low, exchange, currency) but omits potential error behavior, rate limits, or data source reliability. For a read-only quote tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the core function and return fields. There is no filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema, and the description's listing of return fields, it provides sufficient context. It could be more explicit about the response structure (e.g., array of objects) or handling of multiple symbols, but it is reasonably complete for a quote 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions and defaults for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond confirming that one or more symbols are supported, which aligns with the 'symbols' parameter. No deeper parameter semantics are 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('real-time stock price quotes') for one or more symbols. It also lists return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools for holdings and 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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever real-time stock quotes are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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