Get Market Analysis

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the default is to return evidence without a composite verdict, and the verdict is a fixed-weight heuristic that underperformed buy-and-hold in backtesting. It also explains the psychological anchoring rationale, which is more than annotations provide and helps the agent set appropriate expectations.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core function in the first sentence, then moves to usage guidance, and ends with a behavioral caveat. Each sentence contributes new information; the final paragraph, while slightly verbose, earns its place by explaining the design decision around verdicts.

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 an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent: it states what indicators are returned, how readings are normalized, when to use it, the alternative to call, and the default behavior of the verdict. The 100% schema coverage fills in parameter specifics, and the description covers the non-obvious behavioral nuances.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the rationale behind the include_verdict default and the consequence of not requesting a score. It does not re-document parameter types or formats, but the context about outputs and the heuristic adds useful non-schema information.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: "Price action and 50+ technical indicators for a symbol," and clearly states the output format. It differentiates from siblings by positioning this tool as "the usual starting point for a single symbol" and explicitly directing to get_company_profile for fundamentals.

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 when-to-use guidance: it is the default for single-symbol technical analysis. It also names an alternative for broader data (get_company_profile) and warns against chaining calls. The note about no BUY/SELL score unless requested clarifies when to set include_verdict, giving actionable context.

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