get_asset_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists output components but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, response structure, or any limitations. The description only says what stats are included, not how the tool behaves.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key output components without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

The tool has only 2 well-documented parameters, but the lack of an output schema means the description must convey return structure. It lists several stats but not a full breakdown, and it lacks usage alternatives. It is adequate but has gaps in usage and output details.

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 documents both parameters with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by clarifying accepted asset types, but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get comprehensive statistics for a specific asset' which identifies the verb and resource, and lists asset types (stock, ETF, mutual fund, bond). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_top_traded_assets by emphasizing 'specific asset', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 through 'specific asset' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided.

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