get_narratives

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output structure (global narratives, daily topics, articles, sentiment scores) and input constraints. Lacks explicit statement of read-only nature or rate limits, but adequately describes behavior 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?

Well-structured with summary, returns, and args sections. Front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Args:' duplicates schema but adds value), making it slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 no output schema or annotations and three parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. Could clarify sentiment scale or 'dominance' field, but completeness is high for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates: explains tickers format, maximum 10, free tier list; from_date and to_date defaults. Adds meaning far beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states 'Get financial narrative intelligence for one or more stocks' and details the returned data (global narratives, daily topics, articles, sentiment scores). Distinct from sibling tool get_portfolio_risk which focuses on risk metrics.

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?

Explains when to use: 'understand what stories are driving a stock and how sentiment is evolving.' Provides practical parameter details (ticker limits, free/paid tiers) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use this tool.

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