get_sector_heatmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses momentum and lists some sectors, but it omits details such as the exact methodology, lookback period, output format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for full transparency, though it does give some insight into the scan nature.

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 sentence and is generally concise. However, it lists sectors and claims '11 major' while only listing 9 (missing Communication Services and Consumer Discretionary ambiguously), which detracts from precision and adds slight confusion. Still, it earns a high score for being front-loaded and 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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema (though its contents are not shown here), so full return-value documentation is not required. However, the sector list inconsistency (11 vs. 9) and the lack of any explanation of what 'momentum' means or how results are presented leaves gaps. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameters vacuously. Per the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter information to add; the description's reference to momentum and sectors provides context about what the tool processes.

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 ('Scans') and identifies a clear resource (the 11 major S&P sector ETFs) and objective (identify sector rotation by momentum). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_market_analysis or get_technical_indicators by focusing on sector-level momentum and rotation.

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 a use case (analyzing sector rotation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as scan_watchlist or get_market_analysis. There are no exclusions or comparisons to siblings, so the usage context is only implicit.

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