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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that by disclosing the sort key (totalReturnPct incl. dividends when available for all, else priceReturnPct) and instructing the agent to surface rankedBy to the user. It stops short of covering failure modes such as invalid or non-IDX tickers.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does and its scope first, then the ranking rule, then the user-facing obligation. No filler, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant fact (ranked by total return when available) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (totalReturnPct, priceReturnPct, rankedBy) an agent will need to interpret results, and annotations cover safety. Remaining gaps are minor for a two-parameter read tool: error behavior for out-of-range ticker counts or unknown symbols.

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 coverage is 50%: tickers is documented in the schema, range is not (it carries only an enum and default). The description restates the 2–10 bound and clarifies that one range applies uniformly across all compared tickers, but adds no format or syntax detail for ticker codes beyond the schema example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bandingkan performa'), plus hard scope limits: 2–10 tickers, IDX stocks and/or IHSG, single shared time range. Those constraints (multi-ticker, bounded count) inherently separate it from the single-ticker siblings get_quote and get_history.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement (use this when comparing several stocks over one range) but never stated as guidance. No alternative is named — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over calling get_history repeatedly, nor what happens if only one ticker is supplied.

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

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world access, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: a hard 300-candle cap and the interval/range coupling that triggers it. It also clarifies that totalReturnPct includes dividends while priceReturnPct does not, plus dividends/splits within the range — useful semantics beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and return fields are front-loaded, and the constraints (max candles, interval choice) follow immediately after. Nothing repeats the schema or title verbatim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return values — and it does, naming priceReturnPct, totalReturnPct, dividends/splits, high, low and max drawdown. Combined with the candle cap and interval guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: the 300-candle ceiling and the rule that 1wk/1mo intervals suit long ranges, effectively explaining how range and interval interact. It does not document the range enum values themselves, which stay in 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Ambil riwayat harga (OHLC + volume) saham IDX' with an explicit time-range scope, and it enumerates what the response summarizes. The distinction from get_quote (history vs. current quote) is implicit in the wording but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives real operating guidance: 'Maksimal 300 candle terakhir; gunakan interval 1wk/1mo untuk rentang panjang' tells the agent how to combine range and interval. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_quote or compare_stocks, so no explicit exclusion is offered.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it describes average-cost accounting, realizedPnl, dividendsReceived, closed positions, totalReturn, stock-split checks, and the mandatory handling of warnings and totals.incomplete. It does not explain failure modes or file-format requirements, keeping it short of the highest 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary computational details in a single dense paragraph. Every sentence contributes unique information, though the lack of visual breaks makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideally structured definition.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming key output fields like realizedPnl, dividendsReceived, closed, and totals.totalReturn. It also covers the computation methodology, split handling, and warning requirements, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the IDX_PORTFOLIO_PATH environment variable as an implicit input source, which is useful context, but there are no parameters whose semantics could be clarified further.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: reading a local portfolio file and computing market value, unrealized P&L, and estimated net proceeds. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_quote and get_history, which focus on individual securities rather than portfolio-level valuation.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed functionality (portfolio valuation from a local file), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus get_quote, get_history, or compare_stocks. The note that it cannot buy or sell provides a boundary, but alternatives are not named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by warning that prices may be delayed from the exchange and that a freshnessNote (market status and data timestamp) must be surfaced to the user. It also clarifies this is informational, not a buy/sell recommendation. No error or rate-limit behavior is described.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then inputs, then required output behavior and the informational disclaimer. Every sentence carries actionable weight (returned fields, freshnessNote obligation, data caveat) with no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, returned fields, and freshness semantics. Minor gaps remain on error behavior for invalid or delisted tickers and on whether index codes need any special format.

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 100% and the single 'ticker' parameter is already documented as 'Kode saham IDX, mis. BBCA atau IHSG'. The description's examples (BBCA, BBRI, TLKM, IHSG) largely duplicate that, so the baseline of 3 applies with no meaningful value added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in Indonesian ('Ambil harga terakhir saham Bursa Efek Indonesia'), and enumerates what it returns: last price, daily change, 52-week range, and price per lot (100 shares). The word 'terakhir' (latest) implicitly separates it from the sibling get_history, and the explicit support for the IHSG index adds scope clarity.

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?

Gives example tickers (BBCA, BBRI, TLKM, IHSG) and instructs the agent to always relay freshnessNote, which implies usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over get_history, compare_stocks, or get_portfolio, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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