get_market_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that the composite verdict is a 'fixed-weight heuristic that underperformed buy-and-hold' and that an 'unvalidated score anchors judgment', explaining why it is off by default. It also transparently describes the output as measured values with standard readings, giving the user a realistic expectation of what the tool returns.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the first defines the output, the second gives usage context and an alternative, and the third explains an important behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured formatting (semicolons, parentheticals) to remain readable without excess.

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 complexity (50+ indicators) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it does not do (BUY/SELL by default), and why the heuristic is intentionally omitted. The absence of return-value explanation is acceptable because an output schema exists.

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 parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it does not mention count, interval, or include_verdict explicitly. However, it does reinforce the purpose of the 'include_verdict' parameter in the behavior paragraph, but that's already in the schema description. No additional value is added.

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 function: 'Price action and 50+ technical indicators for a symbol' with specific output details ('measured values with each indicator's own standard reading'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself 'the usual starting point for a single symbol' and pointing to get_company_profile for a broader view. This is a specific verb+resource+scope description that avoids ambiguity.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This is the usual starting point for a single symbol' and instructs to 'call get_company_profile instead of chaining calls' when fundamentals/filings are needed. It also clarifies when to request the BUY/SELL score ('unless you ask for one') and explains why it defaults to off. This is clear when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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