Get Updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool performs a diff against a supplied timestamp and covers specific categories (filings, macro, price moves). It doesn't describe the return format, but given the strong annotation coverage, the additional context earns a 4.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second explains why it exists relative to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many data-retrieval siblings. The description covers purpose, usage, and update categories, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention return structure or pagination, but the core context is adequately covered given the tool's moderate complexity.

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's mention of 'timestamp you supply' only echoes the 'since' parameter's schema description without adding new meaning. It does not clarify parameter interactions or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'What has actually changed since a point in time' and enumerates specific update types (SEC filings, macro releases, outsized price moves), giving a clear verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Every other tool here answers what is true now', making its unique role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states this tool answers 'what is new' and warns that doing so without it means 'refetching everything and diffing by hand, which is expensive and easy to get wrong.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, fulfilling the dimension's requirement for explicit when-to-use guidance.

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