yahoo_finance_ticker_analysts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of data returned but fails to disclose any potential issues such as symbols without analyst data, required previous calls, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time or delayed. The description is minimal and does not provide sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and listing the data it returns. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides meaningful information.

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?

Given the tool returns multiple data types (recommendations, upgrades/downgrades, price targets, estimate modules) and lacks an output schema, the description provides a basic overview but does not detail the structure or format of the returned data. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but leaves ambiguity about what exactly 'estimate modules' entails.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'symbol' (Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool returns analyst data including recommendations, upgrades/downgrades, price targets, and estimate modules. It identifies the resource (Yahoo Finance analyst data) and the verb (returns). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings or yahoo_finance_ticker_info, which might also provide related financial data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to call this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when alternatives like yahoo_finance_ticker_info should be preferred. This lack of context could lead to misselection.

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