get_advances_declines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any rate limits, data source, or response format. It is adequate but minimal, missing opportunities to add value.

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 a single sentence with 11 words, front-loading the key information. Every word is essential, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters, the absence of an output schema means the description could elaborate on the return format (e.g., object with counts). It provides the core idea but leaves room for interpretation about the exact output structure.

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?

There are no parameters (0), and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is acceptable.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('market breadth'), and explicitly lists the outputs (advancing, declining, unchanged stocks). It distinguishes itself from siblings as no other tool explicitly mentions 'market breadth'.

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 like get_market_status. The description gives no context about prerequisites or suitable scenarios, which is a gap given the sibling list includes related tools.

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