fmp_sector_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds only the expected date format and point-in-time nature, but does not disclose the effect of the `pe` flag, default date behavior, or output characteristics beyond what the output schema already covers.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no filler; every phrase earns its place by identifying the resource, optional mode, and date format.

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?

With only two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation and purpose identification. It lacks parameter behavior details and usage context that would make it fully self-contained, but the tool's simplicity lowers the requirement.

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 description hints that the `pe` boolean toggles between performance and P/E ratios and provides the date format, offering partial meaning beyond the bare input schema. However, it does not explicitly map these meanings to the parameter names, so it incompletely compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('sector performance, or sector P/E ratios') and the temporal scope ('as of a date (YYYY-MM-DD)'), distinguishing it from sibling FMP data endpoints. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fmp_market_movers or fmp_screener. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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