reference_get_ticker_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, how the optional date parameter affects results, or what happens with invalid symbols. The description is too brief to support safe usage.

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 no redundant words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity sacrifices informative content, so it is not a model of effective structure.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description must compensate by explaining what 'detailed info' entails and how the date parameter behaves. It fails to do so, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), yet the description does not explain that 'symbol' is the ticker identifier or that 'date' is optional and likely filters historical data. This leaves the agent without adequate semantic understanding of the 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 uses the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed info about a ticker and the company behind it,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like news or lists. However, 'detailed info' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on what data fields are returned, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as reference_get_ticker_news or reference_get_stock_financials. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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