get_stock_monthly_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It lists the output fields (custody shares, changes, percentage, etc.) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether it is safe (read-only). The lack of annotations makes this a minimal disclosure.

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 concise with just three sentences, front-loading the key purpose and listing output fields in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description lists the major output fields (custody shares, changes, percentage, issued shares, number of shareholders), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention date range, frequency (monthly is implied), or any limitations, which would enhance completeness.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's type, example, and default. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate documentation for both parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Query' with the specific resource 'TDCC monthly custody change analysis for a stock', immediately identifying the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_stock_weekly_balance' by emphasizing the monthly frequency and the specific analysis table.

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?

The description states 'Useful for tracking custody trends', which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'get_shareholding_distribution', leaving room for ambiguity. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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