Veroq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'COST: 2 credits' (critical for API usage) and comprehensively describes the return structure ('Outlook (bullish/bearish/neutral), summary...') in lieu of an output schema. Lacks explicit mention of caching, rate limits, or idempotency, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Uses a clear section-based structure (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) with zero filler text. Every section earns its place by providing actionable metadata. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing all return fields, mentions the credit cost (important for this API), and clarifies the relationship to sibling tools.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete JSON invocation example ('EXAMPLE: { "symbol": "NVDA" }'), which aids the agent in constructing the correct request format beyond the schema's type definition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive analysis for a ticker'), clearly defining the scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'veroq_full' by contrasting 'interpreted analysis' vs 'raw data', satisfying the sibling differentiation requirement.

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?

Contains an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating the specific use case ('detailed single-ticker analysis with outlook, catalysts, and risks'). It explicitly names the alternative tool ('Use veroq_full for raw data, this for interpreted analysis'), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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