get_consensus

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only discloses that the tool returns consensus data and takes a stock code. It lacks details on output structure, potential errors, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 concise with two sentences and a parameter line, front-loading the purpose. It has minor artifacts (broken character) but is otherwise well-structured and efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It lacks discussion of error cases or limitations, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

Although the schema has no description (0% coverage), the description explains the only parameter 'code' as a 6-digit stock code with an example ('005930'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 provides consensus data including target price, investment opinions, and earnings estimates. It gives example queries, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_price or get_financial.

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 lists example phrases that trigger this tool, giving implied usage context. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or suggest alternative tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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