RiskModels Peer Group

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

Annotations cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: result ordering (market cap), inclusion of each peer's market cap, end-of-day freshness ('refreshed after each US market close'), the source endpoint, and a per-call price. Cost and data-freshness context are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the use condition and the sibling exclusion before the return and operational details. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description specifies the return shape (peer list ordered by market cap with each peer's market cap), data currency, and pricing. For a simple three-parameter lookup, nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly is missing.

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%, with limit, ticker, and group_by all documented including an enum and defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only an implicit echo of the group_by choice ('subsector ETF or sector ETF') and the market-cap ordering, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('the stocks that share a stock's subsector ETF or sector ETF') and explicitly separates this tool from riskmodels_get_cohorts. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_fund, get_etf, or get_cohorts without opening any schema.

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?

It opens with an explicit use condition ('Use when you want...') and adds a negative routing rule ('Not for cohort-level residual statistics (use riskmodels_get_cohorts)'). The alternative and the condition that selects it are named directly.

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