news_by_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the response structure (JSON/CSV, paged series) and the format parameter. However, it omits details like pagination mechanics, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 moderately concise but includes a verbose JSON example that is not well-formatted (all on one line). The main purpose is front-loaded, but the inline JSON could be cleaner or referenced to a schema.

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 no output schema, the description provides the response structure. However, it misses pagination details, default limit, and ordering. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description only mentions 'format' and gives a vague 'YYYY-MM-DD' hint in schema for dates. It does not explain 'ticker' (required), 'date_from', 'date_to', or 'limit'. The agent gets no parameter understanding from the description.

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 returns recent news articles for a ticker and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'news_sentiment_by_ticker' and 'recent_news' by specifying the exact resource (news articles) and verb (returns). The response format is also detailed.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many news-related tools (e.g., 'recent_news', 'news_sentiment_by_ticker') but the description does not explain when to choose this one. The agent must infer based on the name alone.

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