fmp_grades

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever. It doesn't mention the effect of the 'historical' flag, whether the output is current or archival, or any read-only/mutation implications, leaving the full burden unmet.

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 short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single noun phrase omits essential context and has no front-loaded actionable structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide needed context: no explanation of the historical parameter, no usage scenario, and no distinction between the two possible output forms. It is incomplete for a tool with even simple parameters given the absence of annotations.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'symbol' and 'historical' are left entirely to the schema, so the agent gets no help understanding acceptable values or how the boolean changes behavior.

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 names the specific resource (analyst grades) and indicates two data forms (upgrades/downgrades or consensus distribution), which is clear enough to understand what is returned. However, it uses a noun phrase without an explicit verb and the 'or' creates ambiguity about modes, and it doesn't differentiate from related siblings like fmp_analyst_estimates or fmp_price_target.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent receives no selection support.

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