diagnose_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the diagnosis purpose without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, enumerated strategy lists, and parameter documentation. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly shorter by consolidating the list 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?

Given the presence of an output schema to describe return values, the description adequately covers the tool's logic (10 strategies) and input parameters. No critical gaps are apparent for a diagnostic tool with simple inputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear examples and defaults for both parameters (ticker and market), adding practical meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool as diagnosing a stock against 10 specific short-term strategies, with a detailed list of those strategies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_kr_breakout or get_stock_analysis, which focus on screening or broader analysis.

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 implies usage when checking strategy conditions for a specific stock, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Guidance is present only through context and inference.

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