Finance News

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well. It reveals the sort order, how keyword filtering narrows results, the inclusive-source rule, and the non-obvious business_only/Dhaka Tribune behavior. There is no contradiction with the schema, and all important behavioral nuances are surfaced.

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 compact and well-structured: the core purpose comes first, then usage context, then parameter-level details, then the most specialized caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and none of the prose is redundant with the schema or output 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?

For a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers all non-obvious invocation decisions, including an intentional data-source quirk. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The only unmentioned parameter, limit, is straightforward from the schema, so nothing material 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to keyword, sources, and business_only, including valid source values, paywall status, and the Dhaka Tribune feed behavior. The only parameter left entirely to the schema is limit, though its name, integer type, and default value make it self-explanatory.

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 opening line 'Latest business and financial news, newest first' names both the resource and the ordering, and the next sentence gives the practical job: explain what the market is doing. This distinguishes it from sibling price/market tools like top_movers and get_stock by framing the tool as the news-side explanation rather than another market number source.

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 tells the agent when to use it: when prices show that something moved and the agent needs the reason, use the news. It also gives detailed source-selection guidance and a meaningful caveat about Dhaka Tribune. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state a 'do not use when' case, so it stops short of a 5.

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