AxionQuant MCP Server

Official

by axionquant

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are clearly distinguished by asset class prefix (etf_, crypto_, stocks_, etc.) and action, making most purposes unambiguous. However, the sheer volume and a few overlapping tools (e.g., econ_search vs econ_find, filings_search vs filings_recent) introduce minor potential for misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a category prefix and descriptive suffix (e.g., etf_gainers, financials_pe, insiders_activity). Even across different asset classes and data types, the conventions are uniform and predictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 132 tools, the count is extremely high, far exceeding the recommended range even for a comprehensive financial data server. This overwhelms the tool selection space and makes it difficult for agents to navigate, qualifying as an extreme mismatch per calibration.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers an extensive range of financial data: asset classes, quotes, historical prices, fundamentals, filings, sentiment, economic data, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or bond-specific exposure tools), but overall coverage is strong for the apparent purpose.
Average 3.1/5 across 132 of 132 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does not state whether the result is a number, a time series, or a report, nor does it mention data source, frequency, or limitations. The description is a bare label rather than a behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, fluff-free sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits critical context that an agent needs to understand the tool, so the brevity works against usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain what the data represents and what to expect. It provides none of that; the description essentially restates the tool name's implication ('net share purchase activity' vs 'insiders_activity') without elaboration. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the sole parameter 'ticker' as 'Stock ticker', and the description adds no further explanation of how 'net share purchase activity' relates to that ticker. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not elevate it with any additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and a resource 'net share purchase activity', but the resource is vague and not clearly distinct from sibling tools like insiders_transactions or insiders_ownership. It does not specify whose activity (e.g., insiders, company insiders) or the time period, making it hard for an agent to understand the exact purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related insiders tools in the sibling list. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the tool's intended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a snapshot' with no mention of side effects, rate limits, data granularity, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that is presumably a read operation but which never states so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive content. This is efficient but not to the point of being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what 'key financial data' means, what the snapshot contains, or how it differs from other financial tools. An agent cannot determine what to expect or when to call this tool, making it severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (ticker with 'Stock ticker'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. No compensation needed, but also no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a generic action ('get a snapshot') but 'key financial data' is vague and does not specify which financial metrics or statements are included. It fails to differentiate from the many specific financials_* siblings like financials_revenue or financials_balance_sheet, leaving the agent without a clear selection criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools, the absence of usage context makes it nearly impossible for an agent to choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about return format, pagination, error handling, side effects, or any behavioral traits. The description is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits crucial information about what 'summary detail' includes, making it incomplete rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools in the profiles_* family and the lack of any additional context, the description is inadequate for an agent to select and use this tool correctly. No output schema, no guidance on data covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the parameter as 'Stock ticker', which is sufficient. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Get summary detail' and a resource 'ticker', but 'summary detail' is vague and doesn't specify which data are returned. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like profiles_info, profiles_statistics, or profiles_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling profiles_* tools, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get major holders breakdown'—nothing about output format, granularity, historical vs current data, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a data-lookup tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but severely under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks the minimal detail needed to justify its brevity effectively, so it fails to earn its place as useful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple schema and lack of annotations, the description should at least clarify what 'major holders' means and how this tool relates to the broader insiders_* family. It does neither, leaving the agent without adequate context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter, 'ticker', with a clear description ('Stock ticker'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. Per the rubric, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline stands.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description includes a verb ('Get') and a resource ('major holders breakdown'), so it states the general purpose. However, 'major holders' is ambiguous—it doesn't specify whether these are insiders, institutions, or individuals—and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like insiders_institutions or insiders_individuals. The name hints at insider ownership, but the description itself is imprecise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related insider/sibling tools. The description does not mention any alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based only on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' data without revealing any behavioral traits such as response format, scoping, or side effects. For a read-only tool, it does not even hint at whether it returns historical data, current values, or aggregates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and free of filler, but it is too terse to be informative. It conveys the core action but omits crucial context, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is structurally front-loaded, but brevity here harms clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what 'index trend' means and what the response will contain. It does neither, leaving an agent uncertain about the expected result and the tool's exact scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes 'ticker' as a 'Stock ticker' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a ticker' adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get') and a resource ('index trend for a ticker'), but 'index trend' is ambiguous—it could mean an earnings index trend, a stock market index trend, or something else. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like earnings_trend or indices_quote, so its purpose is only partially clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or context in which this should be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the vague description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get historical free cash flow' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no information about data frequency, units, currency, fiscal year alignment, or how free cash flow is calculated. It provides zero incremental behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any substantive content that earns its place, making it more of a placeholder than a useful definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial metric tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context such as return format, the significance of free cash flow, how periods are interpreted, and any caveats like data availability. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'ticker' and 'periods' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify what 'periods' refer to (e.g., quarterly, annual) or any units/format, which could have added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('historical free cash flow'), which distinguishes it from sibling financials tools like financials_operating_cash_flow or financials_capital_expenditures. However, it does not explicitly mention the metric's derivation or how it differs from related measures, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer operating cash flow or capital expenditures separately). The description provides neither explicit context nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the metric name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Get historical price data', revealing nothing about response format, pagination, rate limits, or how the 'frame' parameter affects the data aggregation. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is compact, but it is under-specified. It adds no value beyond the tool name and fails to include any usage cues. While concise, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks substance that could be added without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal. For a tool that returns historical price data, an agent needs to know the shape of the response, default date ranges, and how parameters interact. The description omits all of this, leaving the tool severely incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters ('ticker', 'from', 'to', 'frame'). The description does not add any extra meaning or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional clarification is offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a forex pair'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'forex_quote' (current price) and other asset price tools by specifying 'forex pair'. It is clear enough, though it could be more explicit about what 'historical' entails (e.g., time series vs single point).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forex_quote' for current prices or 'forex_tickers' for list of pairs. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer the appropriate use, which is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose any edge cases (e.g., whether the list includes delisted tokens, what happens with no results, or any rate limits). The description is minimal and offers no behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could incorporate usage guidance without becoming bloated, so it earns a high but not perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with many sibling variants (e.g., etf_tickers, stocks_tickers, futures_tickers) and no output schema, the description is too thin to guide selection. It does not clarify what 'tickers' returns, how it differs from gainers/losers/price tools, or whether it supports various crypto asset types. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer from the name, which is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single optional parameter 'type' with an example ('spot'). The description merely repeats 'optionally filtered by type' without adding any new meaning, such as valid values, default behavior, or interaction with the filter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no additional insight is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cryptocurrency tickers') and mentions the optional filter. It is clear about the basic action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_prices, crypto_quote, or even etf_tickers and stocks_tickers. An agent would not know what makes this tool distinct (e.g., that it returns only ticker symbols vs. price data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'use crypto_gainers for performance lists' or 'use crypto_quote for detailed quotes.' With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'get' but does not describe the output format, time range, aggregation method, or any limitations. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb itself, which is already implicit in the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource immediately. However, it is so terse that it skips necessary context, but for conciseness the structure itself is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'earnings trend' means (e.g., historical EPS, revenue over time, vs. a projection) and how it differs from earnings_history. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent, especially given the large set of sibling earnings tools that could be confused with it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'ticker' with a description 'Stock ticker', which is self-explanatory. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, but the schema is sufficient for understanding what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('earnings trend') for a ticker, so the basic purpose is clear. However, 'earnings trend' is vague and could be confused with sibling tools like earnings_history or earnings_index. There is no differentiation from these similar tools, so an agent may not know what unique data this returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 earnings_history or earnings_index. The description gives no context about distinguishing criteria (e.g., trend summary vs. historical detail) and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining behavior such as timezone handling, default date ranges, pagination, or whether only future events are returned. It does not mention any permissions or rate limits. While not misleading, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, leaving the agent unaware of important operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is not appropriate for a tool with seven optional parameters and no annotations. It under-specifies rather than being concisely informative. A good concise description would front-load core usage guidance; this one provides only the basic action. It is not wordy but is overly terse, lacking necessary structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'economic calendar events' are, how the parameters interact, typical use cases, or any filtering nuances. An agent would have to guess at semantics not covered by the schema. This is far below the minimum viable level for such a parameter-rich tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented with types and meanings (e.g., 'Start date', 'Country code(s) comma-separated'). The description does not add any additional parameter context, but given complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra value, but also no deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get economic calendar events'. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like econ_search (search for economic data) or econ_dataset (retrieve a specific dataset) by explicitly mentioning 'calendar events'. However, it does not elaborate on scope or contrast with relevant siblings beyond the resource name, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention common scenarios (e.g., 'use to fetch upcoming scheduled events'), nor does it distinguish from econ_search or econ_find. There is no exclusion criteria or context that would help an agent decide between this and other economic tools. The absence of any usage direction means the agent must rely solely on the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (find percentages) without detailing expected output, return format, or any side effects. It does not mention whether the result is a list, an object, or whether it includes all holdings or top weights. There is no contradiction, but the information is too thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the sentence is grammatically awkward and could be clearer with punctuation or restructuring, but it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too vague to enable correct invocation. It does not specify what the returned data structure looks like, whether it covers all sectors/industries/stocks, or how results are ordered. An agent cannot predict the response or know if this differs from etf_holdings or etf_exposure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'ticker' with an example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra value beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'what percentage of each sector industry and stocks make up the ETF'. It conveys the core idea of returning weight breakdowns, but the phrasing is awkward and ambiguous ('sector industry and stocks' likely means sector, industry, and stock levels). It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like etf_holdings, etf_holdings_all, or etf_exposure, so an agent gets only a general sense of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools, nor does it state conditions like 'use etf_holdings for detailed holdings' or 'use etf_exposure for geographic exposure'. An agent must guess based on names alone, which is insufficient given the large family of ETF-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only states the action 'Get a forex pair quote' without revealing any behavioral traits—no mention of data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name and fails to inform the agent of any constraints or behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is structurally minimal and front-loaded. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no additional information, so the sentence does not 'earn its place'. While there is no fluff, the lack of substantive content makes the conciseness less valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the quote returns, how it differs from related tools like forex_prices, or any usage context. While the single parameter is well-documented in the schema, significant gaps remain regarding tool selection and expected behavior, making the definition incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter `ticker`, including an example ('EURUSD'). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter; it merely restates the overall purpose. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, the description offers no extra value, aligning with the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get' a 'forex pair quote'. It is clear that this tool retrieves a quote for a single forex pair, and it correctly distinguishes the asset class from other quote tools like stocks_quote or crypto_quote. However, it does not specify what constitutes a quote (e.g., bid/ask, last price), and it does not differentiate itself from forex_prices beyond the word 'quote'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forex_prices, forex_tickers, or other quote tools. The description doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get key statistics', implying a read operation, but does not mention any specific behavioral aspects like data freshness, pagination, or any limitations. The one-line description adds minimal value beyond what the tool name suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, which is efficient, though the brevity sacrifices specificity. For what it conveys, it is appropriately structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling tools, especially within the profiles_ family, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'key statistics' includes, what distinguishes it from profiles_summary or profiles_info, and there is no output schema. An agent would not know what data to expect from this call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'ticker' is described as 'Stock ticker'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither enriches nor contradicts the parameter definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('key statistics for a ticker'), but 'key statistics' is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling profile tools like profiles_summary or profiles_info. It is not a tautology, but it fails to specify the exact nature of the statistics, making it difficult for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools such as profiles_profile, profiles_summary, or profiles_recommendation. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only says 'Get top crypto gainers'. It does not disclose what the tool returns (list format, number of results, sorting criteria), any limitations, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful behavior beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. While it omits key context, conciseness itself is excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description still leaves questions: what defines 'top' gainers, what time frame, what data is returned? With no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify these aspects. It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and per the instructions the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that don't exist, and the schema covers all parameters trivially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb 'Get' and resource 'top crypto gainers', and the asset class 'crypto' distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocks_gainers and forex_gainers. However, it does not specify how 'top' is defined (e.g., time period or ranking metric), which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives like crypto_losers or stocks_gainers, nor any conditions for selecting this tool. An agent must infer 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.
Behavior1/5
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 disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get an ETF quote' and adds no information about data freshness (real-time vs delayed), authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or any side effects. With zero annotation support, this is a critical gap for a tool that will be invoked by an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and resource directly and wastes no words. For a tool with a single parameter, this is appropriately terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param) and the lack of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what 'quote' contains (e.g., price, volume, change) or provide context for how it differs from other quote tools. It does neither. The agent has no idea what data will be returned or how to interpret the result, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ticker' with a clear example ('ETF ticker (e.g., SPY)'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description does not enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description conveys a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ETF quote'), making the core purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from other asset-class quote tools (e.g., stocks_quote, crypto_quote) by naming 'ETF', but it does not explicitly differentiate from etf_prices or etf_fund, which are close siblings. Hence a 4, not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many siblings. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., when to use etf_quote vs etf_prices vs etf_fund). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing beyond the core action—no data source, date range, format, or side effects—leaving the agent to guess what 'insider transactions' entails or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple resource but lacks any structural elements like examples or constraints that could enhance usability while still being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one simple parameter, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It does not explain what insider transactions are, what data is returned, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent would need to infer the output format and scope, which is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'ticker' as 'Stock ticker', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('insider transactions'), making the primary action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like insiders_activity, insiders_ownership, or insiders_funds, which could overlap in meaning and leave an agent uncertain which to select.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis to choose this over the many related insider tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's purpose without revealing any behavioral traits such as output format, historical vs. current data, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds essentially no information beyond what the name already conveys, offering no behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, a single sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or additional context that could make it more helpful while still remaining concise, so it does not reach the top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or behavior. It only states it gets news sentiment but does not mention what the sentiment output looks like (e.g., score, label, range). Given the abundance of similar sibling tools, more context distinguishing this tool and describing the expected result is necessary for completeness. The description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'ticker', so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for a ticker' adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter description 'Stock ticker'. It does not clarify ticker format, accepted exchanges, or any constraints, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get news sentiment for a ticker' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('news sentiment') with a specific scope ('for a ticker'). It clearly indicates the tool retrieves sentiment data for a stock. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like sentiment_all, sentiment_social, or news_ticker, which also deal with sentiment or news for tickers, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description gives no context about whether this is the right choice for news-specific sentiment versus social or analyst sentiment, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states that the tool 'searches' – implying a read operation – but does not specify any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with zero waste, which aligns with conciseness. However, it is under-specified rather than well-structured; the brevity sacrifices critical context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the lack of supporting detail makes it feel incomplete for a tool with a specific scope like FRED.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description should still clarify what the search returns (e.g., dataset names, IDs, metadata) or any constraints. The current description only mentions the search source (FRED) without explaining the result format or how it differs from other econ tools. This leaves a notable gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'Search query'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as expected format, language, or example values. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Search for economic datasets') and specifies the resource ('FRED'), which gives an agent a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like econ_dataset, econ_calendar, or econ_find, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific search tool is preferred over similar econ-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or distinctive use cases that would help an agent choose between econ_search and sibling tools like econ_dataset or econ_find. An agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Search filings...' with no mention of what is returned (e.g., document metadata, links, full text), whether results are paginated, what happens if no results match, or any access restrictions. It does not clarify the nature of the search (e.g., does it return only index entries? Does it require a ticker to get meaningful results?). This is minimal and leaves significant operational details unknown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. There is no wasted phrasing; however, it omits important context that would make it fully useful. It reads more like a placeholder than a complete tool description. Thus, while it is structurally simple, it does not earn a higher score because it sacrifices critical information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least outline the expected result format or indicate whether it returns metadata or content. It does not clarify whether this is a search that returns multiple filings or a single one, whether it requires a ticker to narrow results, or what the response structure looks like. With many sibling filings tools that likely have more detailed descriptions (e.g., filings_document_text, filings_recent), this definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (year, quarter, form, ticker) with examples, covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating 'year/quarter' which is already in the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline is 3; there is no extra value from the description in clarifying parameter usage or constraints (e.g., no explanation of how form or ticker filters interact with year/quarter).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a specific verb+resource: 'Search filings' with a clear scope of 'by year/quarter'. This distinguishes it from siblings like filings_recent (which likely returns recent filings without year/quarter filters) and filings_forms (which probably lists form types). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or highlight the exact filter capabilities beyond year/quarter, and it omits other filters like form and ticker that the schema supports. This is clear but not maximally differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a year/quarter-based search, but does not state when one would choose this over filings_recent, filings_forms, or other filings tools. No exclusions or context is provided about required filters (like needing a ticker) or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice. Given many sibling tools, the lack of routing guidance leaves an agent uncertain about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves historical capex, but does not disclose output format, periodicity, data granularity, or any limitations. While not misleading, it is far too sparse to inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond the bare 'get' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (four words), which is concise, but it borders on under-specification. While it front-loads the core action and resource, it lacks any additional structure or elaboration that would make the brevity genuinely effective. It is acceptable but not excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know what 'historical' means (annual/quarterly), what 'periods' implies, and what the response looks like. The sparse description leaves too much to inference, especially given the large sibling set that could confuse selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `ticker` and `periods` adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context or usage nuances, so the baseline score of 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting and the description offers no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical capital expenditures'), making the core purpose unmistakable. It is clear and distinct enough from siblings like financials_free_cash_flow, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or differentiate itself from other financial metric tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as financials_cash_flow_statement or financials_free_cash_flow. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions – the description is a bare phrase without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 simply states 'Get historical diluted shares outstanding' but doesn't disclose the data granularity (e.g., annual, quarterly), the range of historical periods, the units, or any limitations such as coverage for certain tickers. This is insufficient for a financial data tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it adds almost no information beyond what the tool name already implies ('financials_shares_outstanding_diluted' already signals the metric). It doesn't earn its place with substantive detail, though it is not verbose or poorly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the expected output format, any constraints on the parameters (e.g., valid ranges for periods), or how historical data is presented. Given the financial domain and the presence of many sibling tools, an agent would need more context to call this correctly without extra research.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both 'ticker' and 'periods' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'periods' refers to in terms of frequency). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'historical diluted shares outstanding', which is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling 'financials_shares_outstanding_basic' through the qualifier 'diluted'. It clearly states what data is returned and the timeframe (historical), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention the basic shares tool or any other related metric, nor any conditions that would make this the preferred choice. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get historical stockholders equity' which implies a read-only query but doesn't disclose the return format, time-series structure, data granularity, or any potential limitations. For a simple data retrieval tool this is minimal, but it doesn't contradict anything and offers some implicit safety (historical data retrieval is inherently non-destructive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, but there is no structure or additional context. This is not a well-structured description; it is merely a minimal phrase. It's appropriately sized for the simplicity but lacks the informative structure that would earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the returned data (e.g., list of values over time), the units, or the meaning of 'periods' (e.g., quarters, years). While siblings follow a similar minimal pattern, the description alone does not fully equip an agent to understand what to expect from the call. There is room for more context without being verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as both parameters ('ticker' and 'periods') have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't elaborate on how the parameters interact or the expected format of the 'periods' argument, but the schema already covers basic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical stockholders equity', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling financials_* tools (e.g., financials_revenue, financials_net_income) which follow the identical pattern 'Get historical <metric>'. Without further context, an agent could confuse it with other financial history tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation but is otherwise clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many alternative financial data tools. There is no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is silent on usage context, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name and metric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-liner gives no information about output format, sorting order, data fields returned, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is a substantial gap for a tool that returns data, leaving the agent without expectations about the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, but it is so minimal that it borders on being under-specified rather than concisely effective. It earns points for lack of verbosity but loses points because brevity comes at the cost of critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'top losers' means (e.g., by percentage decline), what the returned data looks like, or any sorting/limit behavior. While sibling tools likely follow a pattern, the agent has no explicit information to understand the result set, making this inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing regarding parameters; the description would only need to add context about implicit constraints (e.g., time range) but nothing is offered, so the score stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top futures losers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like futures_gainers (opposite) and other asset-class losers (etf_losers, stocks_losers, etc.). However, it does not specify what qualifies as 'top' (e.g., by percentage decline, absolute dollar change), leaving a minor ambiguity about the selection criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives such as futures_gainers or futures_list_exchange. It does not mention any condition or context that would make this tool the preferred choice, nor does it exclude any scenarios. There is no discussion of alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only repeats the name with a verb, offering no information about return format, pagination, ordering, number of results, time period, or any potential side effects. For a list-retrieval tool, even basic details like whether it is read-only are absent. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is so terse that it borders on a restatement of the tool name, which slightly reduces its value. Still, for a simple tool with no parameters, the length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the agent can expect. 'Top stock losers' does not clarify what 'top' means (e.g., largest percentage loss over a day, week, etc.), how many results are returned, the ordering, or any filters. While the tool is likely straightforward, ambiguous terms could lead to incorrect assumptions. More detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, when a tool has 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The description is adequate in this dimension since no parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get top stock losers' clearly states a verb and a resource, making it obvious that the tool returns the worst-performing stocks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_gainers by the 'losers' term, and the asset class 'stocks' is explicit. However, it is minimal and could benefit from specifying what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage decline or absolute change), but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, such as comparing with stocks_gainers or other asset-class loser tools (e.g., etf_losers). An agent is left without explicit direction on which tool to select for a given task, though the name and description imply a straightforward listing use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a stock quote' without revealing whether the quote is real-time, delayed, or what fields are returned (e.g., price, volume). This is a significant gap for a tool that agents must invoke correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it does not waste words, it sacrifices substance for brevity, making it merely adequate rather than exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'quote' entails, whether it returns current or historical data, or how it differs from stocks_prices. An agent lacks sufficient context to select it confidently among similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'ticker' well-described as 'Stock ticker (e.g., AAPL)'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a stock quote'), and the word 'stock' differentiates it from sibling quote tools for other asset classes (etf_quote, crypto_quote, etc.). However, it does not distinguish it from overlapping tools like stocks_prices, so it is not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select stocks_quote over stocks_prices or other quote tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing what the response contains, whether it's real-time, or any limitations. For an agent, the behavior is largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. While it is efficient, it could have been slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It doesn't clarify what a supplier entails or how the data is returned. An agent lacks key context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as the ticker parameter is described as 'Stock ticker'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but it doesn't have to compensate for missing schema info. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('supply chain suppliers') for a company. It is specific enough to distinguish from other supply-chain tools like customers or peers, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supply_chain_customers or supply_chain_peers. The agent is left to infer based on the name alone, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 simply says 'Get credit ratings' with no mention of whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned (e.g., ratings from specific agencies), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the tool's basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. There is no redundant or superfluous text, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not hint at the response structure, the need to first obtain an ID via 'credit_search', or any other prerequisite. For a tool with one parameter, it is functional but lacks the context an agent may need to invoke it correctly within a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Organization ID from search results', which is clear and has 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—only restating 'by ID'. Since the schema handles the semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('credit ratings') scoped by 'specific organization by ID'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling 'credit_search' (which would search for organizations) by implying this tool fetches ratings for a known ID, but it does not explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter schema notes the ID comes from 'search results', implying a predecessor search step, but the description itself does not mention prerequisites, such as first using 'credit_search', nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the action and parameter scope, but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, exact matching policy, or what constitutes a 'credit entity'. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. While it is laconic, it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool, though it leans toward under-specification rather than being merely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual richness. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, or any filtering constraints beyond the query parameter. An agent could call it correctly, but might be surprised by the response shape or coverage. More detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'query' has a description ('Organization name to search'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and no extra semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('credit entities') with a clear qualifier ('by organization name'). It is distinct from many siblings like 'credit_ratings' which focuses on ratings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The sibling list is large, and without explicit routing an agent may not know if this is the right search tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get a quote' without revealing what data is returned (e.g., price, volume, timestamp), whether it's real-time or delayed, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This is sparse and does not help the agent anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a 'quote' (e.g., current price, bid/ask), nor does it clarify the difference from crypto_prices. An agent would need more context to confidently select this tool over siblings like crypto_prices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides full coverage of the ticker parameter with an example, so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema describes the parameter completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('cryptocurrency quote'), which is clear. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool crypto_prices, but the verb+resource is specific enough to infer the tool fetches a current quote. This is better than vague but lacks differentiation from similar siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 crypto_prices or crypto_quote for other asset classes. The description does not mention which scenarios call for a 'quote' versus historical prices, nor does it point to any alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves earnings history but does not describe the return format, whether it is a time series, the default time range, or any limitations such as pagination. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of overlapping sibling tools (earnings_trend, earnings_report, etc.) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent cannot determine what 'history' includes (e.g., quarterly vs. annual, timeframe, granularity) nor what the result shape is, making successful invocation uncertain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the single parameter 'ticker' with a description 'Stock ticker', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings history') and identifies the required ticker parameter, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like earnings_trend, earnings_report, or earnings_transcript, so agents must infer which one is appropriate from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on choosing between earnings_history and the many other earnings-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not clarify return format, data availability, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might have premium data restrictions or complex output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action. There is no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple fetch. However, it lacks context on what the earnings report contains (e.g., revenue, EPS, etc.) and whether it returns only one report or a list. Given the availability of related tools like earnings_history, this could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described (ticker, year, quarter). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as required format for quarter (e.g., 'Q1' vs '1') or year range. Since the schema already documents all parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings report') with specific qualifiers (year and quarter). It implies the ticker from the schema. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, it is distinguishable from earnings_history, earnings_trend, etc. by focusing on a single report for a specific period.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 earnings_history or earnings_trend. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid ticker, or scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., fetching a single quarter's report vs. a history).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Get sentiment analysis' without specifying the output format (e.g., numerical score, textual summary), whether this is a read-only operation, or any other side effects or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns structured data with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and does not waste words. This is an appropriate length for a simple lookup-style tool, and the structure is adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe what the sentiment analysis returns (e.g., a score range, sentiment categories, or a detailed report), nor does it mention any edge cases or caveats. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool's response, making it hard to integrate results into a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (ticker, year, quarter) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters interact or what formats are expected beyond the examples already present in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get sentiment analysis of an earnings call transcript.' This clearly distinguishes it from 'earnings_transcript' (which presumably retrieves the raw transcript) and 'sentiment_news'/'sentiment_analyst' (which cover other sentiment types). However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools, so it lacks the explicit comparison that would earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'earnings_transcript' or the broader 'sentiment_*' tools. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent cannot determine when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'AI-powered' which hints at interpretation but does not explain what the tool returns, its limitations, or how it differs from a standard search. This is a significant gap for a discovery tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise and without fluff, efficiently conveying the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the nature of the returned datasets, the scope of coverage, or how it relates to econ_search and econ_dataset. Given the abundance of sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct selection and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the only parameter 'query' as 'Natural language description of the data you need' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning or syntax beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—it neither detracts nor enhances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'economic datasets', and adds that it uses natural language with AI. It is specific enough to understand the core function, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like econ_search or econ_dataset, which are likely related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships to econ_search or econ_dataset, so an agent has no way to know when this tool is the right choice among the econ-* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get ESG scores' without specifying whether these are current scores, historical series, or what ESG pillars are included. It doesn't mention the return structure, potential errors, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the name, which is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficiently minimal with no fluff. However, it might be slightly under-specified for an agent to fully understand the scope, though that's more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. The brevity is appropriate for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the ESG scores look like, possible value ranges, or whether multiple ESG dimensions are returned. It does not. For a tool that returns data, the lack of any return format or scope explanation makes it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'ticker' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming the ticker is a stock symbol (as the schema already shows). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add value but doesn't mislead either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('ESG scores') for a specific ticker, which is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, there are no other ESG-specific tools among the many siblings, so confusion is unlikely. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on what type of data is appropriate (e.g., equity vs. ETF). It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and the single parameter. This is a clear gap in usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but provides no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication, or what happens on invalid tickers. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action, but could have added more detail in the same space; still, it earns a 4 for economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large array of sibling ETF tools and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify what specific metrics and ratings are included, how this differs from etf_quote or etf_prices, or whether the data is real-time or historical. The tool is simple (one param) but the semantic context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ticker', and the schema already provides an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('ETF fund information'), and includes a hint at content ('ratings and metrics'). This distinguishes it from price-focused siblings like etf_quote and etf_prices, though it doesn't name any alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ETF tools (e.g., etf_quote, etf_prices, etf_holdings). The agent must infer that 'ratings and metrics' is the distinguishing factor, which is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but does not describe output structure, pagination, historical vs. snapshot data, or any limitations. The phrase 'all holdals' suggests completeness but lacks detail on how the data is returned or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the action and key outputs. It avoids unnecessary fluff and delivers the core purpose efficiently. While it could front-load the differentiation from siblings, it remains compact and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the minimum necessary to understand its function. However, it does not clarify how it differs from similar tools (e.g., etf_holdings, etf_weights) or what 'all' entails (e.g., all current holdings vs. historical). This moderate gap makes it functional but not fully complete for confident selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'ticker' described as 'ETF ticker (e.g., SPY)'. The description adds no additional parameter context; it merely mentions 'ETF holdings' without elaboration on the ticker's role. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('ETF holdings') with key attributes ('weights' and 'last updated date'). It clearly states the primary purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like etf_holdings or etf_weights, which could be confusing for an agent deciding which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as etf_holdings, etf_weights, or etf_exposure. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the distinction between 'all holdings' and more specific variants, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get sentiment analysis' without specifying what the output looks like (e.g., sentiment score, labels), whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns domain-specific data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject. There is no fluff or redundant wording, which is efficient. However, it is so minimal that it omits context that would be helpful, but that omission is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 sparse description, an agent has little context for correct invocation or result interpretation. The description does not mention return format, pagination, or how to handle the documentId. With sibling tools like earnings_transcript_sentiment, more context is needed to disambiguate. This is inadequate for the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema thoroughly documents the only parameter (documentId) with a description: 'Document ID (base64-encoded URL) from filing results'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get sentiment analysis of an SEC filing document'. It distinguishes from general sentiment tools (sentiment_all, sentiment_news) by specifying 'SEC filing', and from the sibling filings_document_text which retrieves text, not sentiment. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling like earnings_transcript_sentiment, which could cause ambiguity, so it doesn't fully achieve the '5' level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., when to use earnings_transcript_sentiment vs this). An agent would have to infer usage solely from the singular purpose statement, which leaves the choice between similar sentiment tools unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no insight into output format, pagination, error behavior, or how the year/quarter parameters affect results. For a query tool, this is a significant gap; the agent has no idea what to expect beyond a vague 'get filings'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that jumps straight to the action and object. There is zero fluff or repetition, and the sentence is front-loaded with the key element ('Get specific SEC form type filings'). It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how parameters like year and quarter interplay, what a 'limit' means in terms of pagination, or what the response structure looks like. Sibling tools like filings_recent or filings_document_text have more complex contexts, but even for a basic query, the agent lacks guidance on expected results or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (ticker, formType, year, quarter, limit) already has a textual description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core function clearly: fetching SEC form filings for a company and filtering them by a specific form type. It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like filings_recent by implying a formType filter, though it does not name alternatives explicitly. A specific verb and resource are present, so it earns a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filings_recent, filings_search, or filings_document_text. No context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. The description is purely a statement of function, leaving the agent to infer when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like (especially since there is no output schema). The description is not misleading, but it is far from transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It states the core functionality immediately and avoids unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and sits among many filing-related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the time range for 'recent', the return format, or how it differs from filings_search. An agent cannot fully judge when or how to use this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains ticker, form, and limit. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('recent SEC filings'), and the target (a company). It distinguishes this from other filing tools like filings_search or filings_document_text by focusing on 'recent' filings, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from filings_forms or filings_list_forms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as filings_search. An agent is left to infer the use case from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves a cash flow statement but does not disclose return format, default behavior if year/quarter are omitted, or any limitations. This is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain the structure of the returned data or what happens if year/quarter are not provided. This leaves the agent uncertain about the response format and default behavior. For a financial statement tool, more context is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for all parameters, each with a description. The description adds the phrase 'optionally by year/quarter', reinforcing that these are optional, but this is already implied by the schema's required field. Thus, it adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: 'Get cash flow statement for a ticker' with optional year/quarter filtering. It is specific enough to distinguish from income statement and balance sheet, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. The verb 'Get' and resource are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 financials_income_statement or financials_operating_cash_flow. The optional year/quarter parameters imply usage, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves historical data, but it does not mention return format, units, time range, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure, though 'Get' implies a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, though it omits any additional guidance. It is efficient and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the minimal description, an agent has little information about what the response will contain. For a financial metric tool, it would be helpful to mention that it returns a time series or period-based values. The description is incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (ticker and periods), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('historical current assets'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like financials_total_assets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other financials_* tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as financials_total_assets or financials_balance_sheet. The description gives no context about use cases, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention return format, time range granularity, units, or any side effects. While it implies a read operation, it does not confirm safety or disclose any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative about scope. No unnecessary words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the schema's coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'historical' (e.g., does it default to a date range?) and does not clarify the optionality of `periods`. For a tool with many siblings, slightly more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both `ticker` and `periods`, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or syntax details, meeting the baseline of 3 without enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'historical current liabilities', clearly indicating the data being retrieved. It distinguishes from the sibling `financials_total_liabilities` by specifying 'current', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other liability-related tools like `financials_total_liabilities` or `financials_balance_sheet`. The description does not state any context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get calculated financial metrics,' which is vague and doesn't disclose what metrics are returned, the format, potential delays, or any access requirements. For a read tool, some context is added by the word 'calculated,' but it's minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but under-specified, which is a trade-off. The structure is sound for the minimal content provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'calculated financial metrics' includes. It does not enumerate or imply a set, leaving the agent uncertain about the response. The many related siblings make this ambiguity worse, as it's unclear how this differs from financials_snapshot or financials_metrics-like tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% ('Stock ticker'), and the description's 'for a ticker' adds no new meaning. It meets the baseline because the schema already documents the parameter, but it does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('calculated financial metrics') and the object ('ticker'). It implies a bundle of derived metrics, distinguishing it from siblings like financials_revenue or financials_eps. However, it doesn't specify which metrics are included, which could cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many financials_* siblings (e.g., financials_snapshot, financials_eps, financials_pe). The agent is left to infer from the name alone, with no explicit situational cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get price-to-earnings ratio' without mentioning whether it returns a single value or a time series, how missing data is handled, or any output format. Given the presence of from/to/frame parameters, the return shape is ambiguous, which is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses no unnecessary words or repetition. This is ideal conciseness, though it sacrifices completeness—which is captured under other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent—it doesn't explain whether the result is a single ratio or a series, how date filtering works, or what the response structure is. An agent could call it incorrectly (e.g., expecting a scalar when it returns a list). Significant information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships or usage—it doesn't clarify that from/to are likely used together or that frame controls resampling. The schema carries the load, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get price-to-earnings ratio for a ticker'. It accurately reflects the tool's function and is unambiguous. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling financial tools, the name and description make the purpose self-evident, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like financials_metrics or financials_snapshot. The description only states what it does, not the conditions or context in which it should be selected. This leaves 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a futures contract quote' – implying a read operation but giving no detail about the response format, potential errors, rate limits, or what data fields are included. The agent cannot anticipate whether the quote includes bid/ask, volume, or the exact structure of the return.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool. It does not waste words, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits any explanation of what the quote contains (e.g., price, change, volume), whether it returns real-time or delayed data, or any usage caveats. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it provides only the barest statement of function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with 'ticker' documented as 'Futures ticker (e.g., 'ALI', 'M6A')'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate with extra parameter context (such as ticker format rules or how to obtain valid tickers).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('futures contract quote'), clearly indicating the tool returns a quote for a single futures contract. It distinguishes from sibling quote tools like etf_quote or crypto_quote by naming the asset class, and from other futures tools like futures_prices (which likely returns a list) by the word 'quote'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between futures_quote and futures_prices beyond that implication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as futures_prices, futures_tickers, or the myriad other quote tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a ticker from futures_tickers) or when a list might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the one-line summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention pagination, rate limits, return format, or any side effects (though it is likely read-only). The single sentence offers minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and optional filter in a front-loaded manner. However, it could be slightly more structured to include usage tips, but length is ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks any mention of result format or behavior details that would be needed to fully utilize the tool, so it is only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the exchange parameter is already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'filtered by exchange' adds marginal value by confirming the filter is optional, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (futures tickers), with an optional exchange filter. It is specific enough to distinguish from gainers/losers tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like futures_list_exchange which might also list tickers by exchange.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as futures_list_exchange or futures_prices. The description only gives the basic functionality, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases, which is especially needed given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get an index quote' without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, data freshness, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though somewhat sparse. The structure is efficient given the tool's simplicity, but it does not leverage the space to add meaningful context beyond the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple quote tool, the description is minimally complete but lacks clarification on what 'quote' entails (e.g., price, volume, change). There is no output schema to compensate, and the description does not differentiate from 'indices_prices' or other quote tools. It is adequate for a basic call but leaves ambiguity about the response shape and use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'ticker' is documented with descriptive examples ('AXJO', 'AEX'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an index quote' specifies the action (get) and the resource (index quote). It is clear about the tool's basic purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indices_prices' or 'stock_quote'. The resource is specific enough that an agent can infer it returns a current quote for an index ticker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'indices_prices' or other quote tools. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context for when this is the preferred choice. An agent is left 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states what data is retrieved but does not mention whether the data is historical or current, depth of coverage, or any quirks like data delay or units. For a read-only operation, it is minimally acceptable, but it adds no context beyond the literal action, leaving the agent uninformed about expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action. However, it is so minimal that it lacks any supplementary structure (e.g., usage notes), but for a simple tool this conciseness is acceptable and does not detract from readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks contextual enrichment. It does not explain what constitutes 'fund ownership' relative to other ownership types or any further specifics. While not dangerously incomplete, an agent might need additional inference to fully understand the tool's applicability, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as the parameter 'ticker' is documented with 'Stock ticker'. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, such as accepted formats, examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get fund ownership data for a ticker' clearly identifies the operation (get), the resource (fund ownership data), and the scope (for a ticker). It is specific and not tautological. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like insiders_institutions or insiders_ownership, which could confuse an agent, so it loses a point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as insiders_institutions or insiders_activity. It purely states the action and target, leaving the agent to infer suitability based on name alone. No exclusions, conditions, or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose data freshness, whether results include historical ownership or current holdings, response format, or any limitations. In the context of many similar insider-related tools, this is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether the tool meets the user's needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately brief for the complexity of the tool, though it could benefit from a few more details without becoming verbose. The structure is acceptable for a simple data retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears to return institutional ownership data for a single ticker, but the description does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., percentage owned, number of institutions, changes over time) or clarify how it differs from adjacent tools like insiders_ownership. With no output schema and multiple sibling tools covering similar domains, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently distinguish and use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (ticker) with a description 'Stock ticker', which is clear enough. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institutional ownership data'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves institutional ownership information. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like insiders_ownership or insiders_funds, which could refer to similar data. The lack of explicit distinction leaves the agent to infer differences from the tool name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or context for selecting it over sibling tools such as insiders_ownership, insiders_activity, or insiders_transactions. An agent has no way to know whether this tool is appropriate for a given request without additional schema or naming clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get news'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied), any pagination behavior, return format, or rate limits. The brevity leaves key behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, minimal sentence with no excess words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. Nothing is superfluous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling news tools (news_ticker, news_country, news_general), the description is insufficiently contextual. It does not explain what distinguishes a 'category' from these other news filters, nor does it describe return behavior or use cases. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would likely struggle to select it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full documentation for the single parameter (category) with a description and example ('business', 'technology'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no additional value beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (news for a category), which makes the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling news tools like news_ticker, news_country, or news_general, so the agent cannot tell them apart based on the description alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling news tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any selection criteria. The agent is left to infer that 'category' relates to news topics, but there is no comparison to other news resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get calendar events', implying a read operation, but does not clarify details like whether the events are historical or future, the date range, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The scope of 'calendar events' is vaguely defined, and there is no mention of what happens if no events exist or if the ticker is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no filler words. It immediately conveys the action and target. The structure is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the object 'calendar events', making it easy to scan. Every word contributes meaning, so it earns a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not specify whether the events are upcoming or historical, the typical date range, or the format of the returned data. Given the large number of sibling tools with similar names, the lack of differentiation and return-value details leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for 'ticker' is complete (100% coverage), providing a straightforward definition ('Stock ticker'). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states — it simply reuses the term 'ticker'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat the schema but could have added context like accepted formats (e.g., uppercase, exchange suffix), but this is not essential.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves calendar events (earnings, dividends) for a given ticker, using a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource. It is unambiguous about the subject matter, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like earnings_history or earnings_report. The mention of 'earnings, dividends' adds specificity that helps set it apart from generic calendar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. Many sibling tools exist (e.g., earnings_history, earnings_report, profiles_info) that could serve similar purposes. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this for upcoming events' or 'use this instead of X when Y'. An agent has no context on when this tool is the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose any behavioral details such as output shape, pagination, or data limitations. For a simple getter, some transparency is expected, but the description is minimal and provides no depth beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the core function immediately and is well-structured for quick scanning. It earns a top score on conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of profiles_* siblings, the description is under-specified about what distinguishes this tool from profiles_summary or profiles_statistics. It also lacks any information about the return value format, which is not covered by an output schema. For a single-parameter tool, it might be minimally sufficient, but the ambiguity among siblings makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'ticker' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Stock ticker'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('company info / summary profile'), and ties it to a ticker. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by implying a high-level summary rather than detailed statistics, but it does not explicitly name a distinguishing sibling (e.g., profiles_summary) so it is not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like profiles_summary, profiles_statistics, or financials_snapshot. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context. No exclusion conditions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get recommendation trend' implies a read operation but does not clarify what counts as a 'trend' (e.g., historical series, current consensus, rating changes), what the output format is, or whether any permissions are needed. This is insufficient for a financial data tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for its purpose, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage or output cues without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set (including profiles_*, earnings_trend, sentiment_analyst) and the absence of an output schema, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot infer what 'recommendation trend' specifically entails, how it differs from similar tools, or what the response structure looks like. The description does not provide enough context for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the sole required parameter 'ticker' with a basic description ('Stock ticker'), reaching 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., ticker format, accepted exchanges). Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('recommendation trend'), and a target ('ticker'). The verb-object pairing is unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic tools like 'profiles_profile' or 'profiles_statistics', though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as 'earnings_trend', 'sentiment_analyst', or other profile-related tools. It only states what it does without any contextual cues, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (get sentiment) without disclosing output format, time range, data source specifics, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage for a read operation, falling short of helpful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no redundancy or filler. The key information (action and resource) is front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is extremely thin. It doesn't specify what sentiment data is returned (e.g., score, breakdown), how it differs from other sentiment tools, or any usage context. Given the many sibling sentiment tools, this is insufficient for correct selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the parameter 'ticker' as 'Stock ticker' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it sticks to the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'social media sentiment' for a specific ticker, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sentiment tools like sentiment_all or sentiment_news, though the 'social media' qualifier partially distinguishes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sentiment-related siblings (sentiment_all, sentiment_news, sentiment_analyst), the lack of any selection guidance leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Get') but does not mention possible failure modes, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response object looks like. It is not contradictory but is severely under-specified for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly leads with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It is optimally sized for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves unclear what the response contains (e.g., list of tickers, company names) and does not explain how 'competitors' is defined. Given the presence of similar supply chain tools, an agent would struggle to predict the result or choose the right tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes 'ticker' as 'Stock ticker' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints to the parameter, so it provides no value 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('supply chain competitors') for a company via ticker. It is distinct from the sibling tools 'supply_chain_customers' and 'supply_chain_suppliers' by meaning, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the closely related supply_chain_customers or supply_chain_suppliers. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state output format, sorting criteria, the number of results, or any limitations. The agent gains no insight into what 'top losers' actually returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, extremely concise and direct. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. While it lacks structured formatting, it is appropriately minimal for a parameterless convenience tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., a list of forex pairs with percentage losses). It does not, making the tool a black box. An agent cannot predict what data will be returned or how to interpret it, which is inadequate for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parametric information to explain, and the description does not incorrectly invent any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Get top forex losers') and is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'forex_gainers' by the direction. However, it lacks specifics on what defines 'top' (e.g., by percentage change, volume) and the time window, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'stocks_losers' or 'futures_losers'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess applicability without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details on its own. It only states a noun phrase without any disclosure of output format, sorting order, time period, pagination, or limitations. The agent knows it returns something, but has no clue about the structure or behavior of the response, making it significantly under-transparent for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than elegant conciseness, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (no params), the absence of an output schema and any annotation means the description must stand alone to guide the agent. It fails to explain what 'gainers' entails (e.g., sorted by percentage change, limited to top N), or what the return structure looks like. Given the large sibling family, more context on the typical response (e.g., a list of index symbols with performance) is expected for a complete definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% (empty object), the description need not explain params. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about params, but none are needed, so the score holds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get top index gainers' specifies a clear verb and resource, indicating it retrieves top-performing indices. It distinguishes itself from other gainer tools (e.g., etf_gainers, stocks_gainers) by the explicit 'index' term, and from indices_losers by 'gainers'. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it lacks the strongest differentiation seen in top-tier descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like etf_gainers or crypto_gainers. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer that the 'indices' prefix indicates the intended asset class, but no explicit steering exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only restates the tool's action at a high level ('Get unique exchange values') and doesn't disclose the output format, whether values are codes or names, or any other behavioral detail. It's a read operation, so no destructive concerns, but nothing meaningful is added beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it's borderline under-specified — 'Get unique exchange values for indices' almost exactly echoes the tool name, so the conciseness is more a product of minimalism than of efficient information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the bare minimum. It hints at the return (unique exchange values) but doesn't clarify the output shape. It's adequate for a trivial list tool but leaves an agent to guess what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Get unique exchange values for indices.' It's specific about what is returned. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (stocks_list_exchange, futures_list_exchange, forex_list_exchange) — the name itself carries that discrimination, not the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like indices_list_country, indices_list_timezone, or indices_tickers. There is no when/when-not context or mention of what scenario would select this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and stops there—no mention of return format, pagination, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and parameters. There is no wasted word or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential retrieval request. However, it lacks any detail about the transcript's content or format, and it doesn't distinguish from earnings_transcript_sentiment, which is a closely related sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (ticker, year, quarter). The description merely repeats these names without adding extra meaning (e.g., formats, constraints, dependencies). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings call transcript') with the key parameters (ticker, year, quarter). It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes from siblings like earnings_history or earnings_transcript_sentiment, though it doesn't explicitly clarify that it returns the raw transcript text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as earnings_report or earnings_transcript_sentiment. There are no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its suitability 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral aspects like pagination, ordering, or any limits. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and output. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description names the output fields but omits details about what 'top' means (e.g., number of holdings, sorting criteria). It also doesn't mention any response structure, which is important since there's no output schema. Given the availability of etf_holdings_all and etf_weights, more specificity would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, documenting the ticker parameter clearly. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (ETF top holdings), and specifies the returned fields (weights, shares, market value). It differentiates from siblings like etf_holdings_all by the qualifier 'top', though it doesn't 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etf_holdings_all or etf_weights. There is no mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention what the response looks like, whether results are sorted, if there is a limit, or any details about the data returned. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is highly concise, but could be slightly more detailed in explaining the ranking criteria without sacrificing brevity. Still, for a simple tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values in depth. However, the term 'top' is ambiguous without defining what makes an ETF a 'loser' (e.g., worst performance by percentage). The description is adequate for a basic getter but lacks clarity on the exact selection criteria, leaving room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is already complete (100% coverage) with no fields. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no misleading information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'top ETF losers', which distinguishes it from siblings like etf_gainers and crypto_losers by asset class and direction. It does not specify the ranking criteria (e.g., percentage decline, dollar change), leaving some ambiguity but still conveying the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like stocks_losers and crypto_losers, the description should explicitly state that this is for ETFs specifically, and suggest alternatives for other asset classes. The absence of any such comparison leaves 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get historical price data' without any details about response format, potential limitations (e.g., date ranges, data availability), or that it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It is appropriately short and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbiage, making it a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the bare minimum. It doesn't mention what the output looks like (e.g., time series), how the 'frame' parameter affects results, or what happens if date range is omitted. Given the rich sibling context, the description should at least clarify its scope and contrast with etf_quote. It's functional but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions ('ticker', 'from', 'to', 'frame'), so parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage. However, it doesn't reinforce or exemplify the parameters, so it stays at baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving historical price data for an ETF. It distinguishes from siblings like etf_quote (current quote) and etf_gainers/losers (lists of movers) because historical data is a distinct concept, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related siblings such as etf_quote, stocks_prices, or crypto_prices. It doesn't clarify that this is specifically for ETFs, nor does it mention the typical use case of historical analysis versus real-time quotes. The agent is left to infer the right context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List etf tickers' without mentioning return format, pagination, or any side effects. It doesn't clarify whether this returns all tickers or a subset, and doesn't address any limitations or requirements (e.g., no prerequisites).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, perfectly succinct sentence that conveys the core function and optional filters. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description is adequate, but given the large number of sibling tools with similar names, it lacks contextual clarity about how this differs from etf_list_country or etf_list_exchange. Also, no output schema exists, so the description could have mentioned what data the response contains (e.g., ticker symbols only, or additional metadata).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (country and exchange) are described in the schema. The description adds a brief note that filters are optional, which aligns with the schema but provides no extra meaning about value formats or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('etf tickers') with optional filters, making the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools like etf_list_country or etf_list_exchange, which could cause confusion about which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the numerous specialized siblings (e.g., etf_list_country, etf_list_exchange). The description only mentions optional filters but doesn't indicate when those filters are preferred over dedicated listing tools or what distinguishes this from a general listing function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it retrieves TTM EBITDA but does not clarify how 'to' and 'from' parameters affect the TTM calculation, the default time period, or the data's currency/units. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words, and the key information (TTM EBITDA) is front-loaded. While it is very brief, there is no wasted text, making it efficient, though slightly under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and minimal description, essential context is missing: the return format, whether 'from'/'to' override the TTM period, and any units. Given the existence of many financial siblings, the absence of usage context and output details makes the description incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter (ticker, to, from) already has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value about the parameters, such as how they interact to compute TTM, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents them sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('TTM EBITDA for a ticker'), clearly identifying the financial metric and entity. It effectively distinguishes itself from the many financials_* siblings like financials_revenue or financials_net_income by naming the exact metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as financials_metrics, which might also include EBITDA, or financials_income_statement. The description only implies its use for TTM EBITDA but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get market capitalization' without indicating whether it returns a single current value or a historical time series, despite the presence of from/to/frame parameters. It also does not mention output format, pagination, or any special behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool that clearly supports date ranges.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning that it supports historical ranges, which would add value. Still, it is appropriately short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters including optional date range and resampling, the description is too sparse. Since there is no output schema to clarify the return format, the description should at least hint that the tool can return historical time series given the from/to/frame parameters. Without this, an agent may not know when to supply those parameters or what to expect in response, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with a clear description ('End date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Resampling frequency: daily, weekly, monthly', 'Stock ticker'). The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('market capitalization'), and a specific target ('a ticker'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financials_* tools like financials_revenue or financials_pe, which cover different metrics. There is no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention when to prefer market cap over other financial metrics, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing historical data). The usage context is entirely implied by the name, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get historical operating cash flow', implying a read operation and temporal scope, but it does not disclose return format, currency, magnitude (e.g., in millions), whether the value is per-share, or any pagination or error behavior. This is insufficient for a financial data tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though it could be more informative while remaining concise. It front-loads the core verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that returns a specific financial metric, the description is notably incomplete. It does not specify what the output represents (e.g., total operating cash flow per period), whether values are in thousands, millions, or as reported, the default number of periods if omitted, or any details about the time series (e.g., quarterly vs. annual). Even though the schema covers parameter definitions, the absence of output expectations and metric details leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (ticker: 'Stock ticker', periods: 'Number of periods'), so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds the word 'historical', which reinforces the relevance of the 'periods' parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get historical operating cash flow' clearly identifies a specific financial metric (operating cash flow) and indicates that it returns historical data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_cash_flow_statement (which would provide the full statement) and other financial metrics (revenue, net income, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that it should be used instead of financials_cash_flow_statement when only the operating cash flow line is needed, nor does it address any prerequisites or context for choosing this metric. An agent is left to infer the purpose 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose whether the result is a single value or a time series, what period the ROE covers (e.g., TTM, annual), or any data-source caveats. This is a significant gap for a financial metric tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, though it might be too sparse to be maximally useful. Still, it earns high marks for lack of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the return format looks like, whether the date range is optional/required, and how the data is structured. The current description leaves these essential details unstated, making the tool incomplete for effective use without further investigation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a basic description (e.g., 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents them adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get return on equity for a ticker' clearly names the verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like financials_eps or financials_pe by the specific metric name, so an agent can easily identify what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other financial metrics, nor any explanation of the optional date parameters or expected output format. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema alone, with no help on when to prefer this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'historical' implying time-series data, but does not explain return format, units, period definitions, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. The structure is front-loaded and direct, making it easy to parse. The description earns its place without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks details on what 'historical' means in terms of frequency (e.g., quarterly, annual), the currency, or the behavior when periods is omitted. Given the absence of annotations, this is only partially complete for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as both parameters (ticker and periods) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the word 'historical', which hints at time-series but does not clarify the meaning of 'periods' in terms of frequency or default. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical total assets, using a specific verb ('Get') and a specific financial metric ('total assets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_revenue or financials_total_liabilities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other financials tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. There is no context about typical use cases or when this tool would be preferred over the balance_sheet or other metric-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get' implying a read operation but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention rate limits, or describe the return format. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, though it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple enumeration tool, but it lacks context about what 'rating' means in the forex domain and what the output looks like. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, more detail about the result set would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to explain. This score is appropriate given the schema is empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get unique rating values for forex'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like forex_list_exchange or forex_list_country. However, 'rating' is a somewhat ambiguous term in the forex context, so it could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forex_tickers or forex_prices. The description implies use when rating values are needed but provides no explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify the return format (e.g., a list of strings), any potential pagination, or other behavioral traits. For a trivial no-parameter tool this is less critical, but it still lacks explicit disclosure about what the caller should expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it could have included more contextual detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but falls short of fully complete. It does not mention that the tool returns a list (presumably of currency codes) or specify any output characteristics. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap, but the description could have been slightly more detailed to remove ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but this is acceptable given the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('unique currency values'), and domain ('futures'). It is unambiguous and not a tautology, though it closely mirrors the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools for other asset classes (e.g., etf_list_currency), but its purpose is still clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as futures_list_exchange or stocks_list_currency. The description gives no context about the intended use case or decision criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic action without revealing important behaviors like return format (time series), error handling, or any constraints (e.g., date range limits). For a read operation, this is a considerable gap, though the lack of destructive behavior is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently states the core function with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a historical price tool. It does not mention that the output is a time series, clarifies ticker format, or indicates default date ranges. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent only gets the basic idea, which is sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks detail that could prevent misuse or misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (to, from, frame, ticker) documented inline. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No compensation is needed given the full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a futures contract,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like futures_quote (likely current price) and other asset price tools by specifying 'futures.' However, it does not mention the specific format of the historical data (e.g., OHLCV), which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as futures_quote or similar price tools for other asset classes. With a large sibling list, the lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool, especially without any mention of distinctions like quote vs. historical data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and provides no details about return format, error handling, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., whether it supports all index types, or if it returns a list of tickers only). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any wasteful words. The structure is optimal and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of expected output shape or how to handle invalid tickers, which could be important for an agent. It is adequate but not complete; a note on return format would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the parameter fully with examples ('SPX', 'AXJO'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the component stocks of an index, with a specific verb ('get') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indices_quote or indices_prices, which focus on price or performance data, by explicitly focusing on constituents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention that it's specific to indices (though the name implies it), nor does it exclude usage for ETFs or other asset types. There is no mention of conditions like only for indices tickers or distinctions from etf_holdings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral insight, but it only states the action without describing the return format, pagination, ordering, or any caveats. This leaves the agent with minimal information about 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple parameterless tool, though it forgoes potentially valuable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not clarify whether the list spans all indices or any filter, nor the exact output structure. It is enough for a simple lookup but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully comprehensive. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, making the baseline of 4 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get unique country values for indices' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the word 'unique' adds a meaningful qualifier beyond the tool name. However, it does not actively differentiate from sibling tools like stocks_list_country or etf_list_country beyond the asset-class naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list_country tools for other asset types. The description simply restates the purpose without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get unique timezone values' without indicating the return format (e.g., a list of strings), output structure, or any limitations. For a tool that is effectively a read-only lookup, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a parameterless lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sparse. It lacks details about return type (e.g., a list of timezone strings), any formatting, or a note that these values can be used to filter indices. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the agent will receive, but it does not. This is a significant gap for a complete definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params to document). Per the instructions, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters since none exist, and no additional semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('unique timezone values for indices'). It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'indices_list_exchange' by focusing on timezone. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that this is useful for obtaining a list of valid timezone filters for indices, nor does it call out any exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states that it returns top losers; it does not disclose the response shape, result limit, sorting logic, or time period. For a zero-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At four words, the description has zero waste and is front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately sized for its simple purpose, though it is arguably too thin to be maximally useful. Nonetheless, for conciseness it earns a high mark.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must define the deliverable. It conveys the core intent but omits the return format, how many results, and the period over which losers are measured. For a zero-parameter tool this is adequate but leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to explain no parameters, and this limitation means there is nothing for parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top index losers'), clearly identifying this as a losers-list tool for indices. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling 'losers' tools by the 'index' asset class qualifier, though it doesn't define what 'losers' means (e.g., percentage threshold, count, period).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as indices_gainers, stocks_losers, or etf_losers. With dozens of similarly-shaped list tools, there is no routing hint (e.g., 'use indices_gainers for top performers') leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'get news' without mentioning any side effects, data format, pagination, or potential limitations. For a read-only tool this is thin, but acceptable for a simple fetch; still, it lacks any details an agent might need to anticipate the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could include a brief mention of output type or usage context without bloating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set with multiple news-related tools, the description does not provide enough context to distinguish when 'news_country' is appropriate versus 'news_category' or 'news_general'. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the news result looks like. The tool is simple, but the lack of contrast with siblings leaves the agent guessing about alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'country' has a description 'Country name or code'). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already says, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get news for a specific country' clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (news), and a specific filter (country). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like news_general (all news), news_ticker (news for a ticker), and news_category (news by category), so an agent can infer its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many news siblings (news_general, news_category, news_ticker, etc.). The description implies usage (when you want news for a country) but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get general news headlines' without detailing what is returned (e.g., list format, headline metadata), whether pagination exists, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is minimal and leaves important operational behavior unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is an extremely concise phrase, 'Get general news headlines,' with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it is borderline under-specified. It still earns a high score for brevity and front-loading the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description conveys the essential action. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes 'general' versus other news categories and does not inform the agent about the expected response structure. For agents distinguishing among many sibling news tools, this description is only minimally adequate and could be more informative about scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter-level meaning. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description need not explain anything about inputs since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get general news headlines.' While it does not explicitly reference sibling news tools, the word 'general' implies broad coverage, distinguishing it from specialized ones like news_ticker or news_category. It is not a tautology and provides a clear enough purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. Sibling tools such as news_ticker, news_country, news_category, and news_article are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer which scenario warrants 'general' news. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it doesn't specify what is returned (e.g., scores, labels), whether there are any rate limits, or auth requirements. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks depth, it doesn't waste words, so it scores well on conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the abundance of sibling sentiment tools, the description is too sparse to fully disambiguate usage. It doesn't explain what 'analyst/AI sentiment' means concretely, what data is returned, or how it relates to possibly broader sentiment_all. For a 1-parameter tool it's minimal, but it leaves room for interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'ticker', which is described as 'Stock ticker'. The description adds no new meaning beyond that, just rephrases it as 'for a ticker'. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('analyst/AI sentiment'), and a target ('for a ticker'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like sentiment_social and sentiment_news by narrowing to analyst/AI sentiment, so an agent can immediately tell it apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sentiment_all, sentiment_social, or sentiment_news. The description states what it does but provides no context on selection. With many sentiment-related siblings, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get top stock gainers' without explaining the output format, sorting criteria, market scope, or whether data is real-time. This is a read-only operation, but the lack of any detail leaves behavior largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a parameter-less tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't say what the response looks like (e.g., array of tickers with prices, percentage changes) or whether any filters apply. An agent calling this tool doesn't know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to explain any inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'top stock gainers', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_gainers and stocks_losers at a basic level. However, it doesn't specify what 'top' means (e.g., percentage change, volume) or how many results are returned, so it's clear but not fully precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action without noting that it applies specifically to stocks (not ETFs or crypto) or mentioning siblings like stocks_losers for the opposite case. Usage is only implied by the tool name, not stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose the response format, any pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. For a simple enumeration tool, this is a minimal gap, but the absence of any behavioral details beyond the core action leaves the agent without expectations for the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It wastes no words and is completely front-loaded with the essential action and target. This is an excellent example of concise specification for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual detail. It does not explain what 'type' values refer to, nor how they differ from 'category' or 'rating' in the crypto domain, which might be relevant given the sibling tools. Without this context, an agent may not fully understand the output's meaning, though the operation itself is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (i.e., there are none). Per the evaluation guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as there is nothing for the description to add. The description correctly omits parameter information because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'unique type values' scoped to 'crypto'. It differentiates from other crypto listing tools like crypto_list_category and crypto_list_rating by using the term 'type', but it does not elaborate on what 'type' encompasses. The verb-resource pairing is specific enough for most agents to distinguish it from siblings with different resource names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling tools such as crypto_list_category or crypto_list_rating, nor any conditions that would lead an agent to choose 'type' over others. The usage context is entirely implied, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for retrieving type values without any explicit decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get top crypto losers' and gives no information about sorting order, time horizon, result formatting, pagination, or any other observable behavior. An agent has no indication of what a 'call' returns or any constraints, which is insufficient even for a read-only getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose immediately. There is no wasted wording, so it earns a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential gist but lacks operational detail. An agent knows it returns 'top crypto losers' but not what fields are in the response, how many results, or what defines 'top' (e.g., 24h change, 7d change). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a moderate gap that could cause assumptions or misparsing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is at 100% (vacuous). The description doesn't add any parameter-related meaning, but none is required since there are no parameters. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description could note that no arguments are needed, but that's implied by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get top crypto losers' clearly states a specific verb ('get') and a resource ('top crypto losers'), distinguishing it from the many sibling 'losers' tools by the 'crypto' prefix. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's function, though it doesn't specify the metric (e.g., price change over a period) or the number of items returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this complements crypto_gainers, nor does it clarify how it differs from other 'losers' tools like stocks_losers or etf_losers. The sibling list is large but the description provides no routing or exclusion context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens on invalid tickers, whether data is limited to a certain range, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it lacks a structured breakdown of details that could accompany longer descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., array of OHLCV data). It also doesn't mention what happens when optional parameters are omitted, such as default time ranges or frame granularity. While the purpose is clear, an agent would benefit from knowing the expected output and default behavior, which this description omits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify formats further or explain defaults for optional parameters (from, to, frame) beyond what the schema says. Thus, the description offers no extra value in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a cryptocurrency', which differentiates it from siblings like crypto_quote (likely current price) and crypto_gainers/losers (movement lists). The word 'historical' provides a precise scope that aligns with the tool's name, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_quote or other asset-class price tools. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without any details on response format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, it lacks any description of the return data structure or usage constraints. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what the response contains, and no other context (e.g., authentication requirements) is mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a description and an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('economic dataset time series') plus the method 'by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like econ_search and econ_find, which are for finding datasets, and econ_calendar for calendar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies that an ID is required but does not mention that one should use econ_search or econ_find to obtain an ID, nor any conditions for preferring this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool 'gets' gainers, but does not reveal what data is returned (e.g., list of tickers, percentage changes), any limitations (e.g., time period, market), or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and every word adds value. It is efficient without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks key context such as what 'top' means, any time horizon, or what the output looks like. Sibling tools like etf_losers imply symmetry, but the description alone does not fully equip an agent to interpret or use the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no param explanations, and the schema is empty. It is fully self-contained in this regard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('top ETF gainers'). It is not a tautology because 'top' adds meaning, and the name itself distinguishes ETFs from other asset classes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like etf_losers or other gainers tools, and it leaves 'top' ambiguous (e.g., by daily change, volume, etc.), so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar for distinguishing from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this is for identifying ETFs with the largest gains in a given period, nor does it contrast with etf_losers or other asset-class gainers. An agent would have to infer the use case 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.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. The description adds little beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about potential traits like pagination or data sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and relevant components. Every word contributes value, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by naming the output components. However, it omits details about the response structure, such as whether it returns a single value or a breakdown, and any limitations. Given the simple input and direct purpose, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ticker', which is described as 'Stock ticker'. The description itself adds no extra semantics about the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get discount rate / WACC calculation' and lists specific components (cost of equity, cost of debt, capital structure weights). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_dcf_value or financials_metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it's for discount rate/WACC data. There is no mention of alternative tools, exclusions, or contexts where another financials tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists return values and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data source, error handling, or whether the recommendation is derived from a specific model. The mention of 'buy/sell recommendation' gives a hint of the analysis, but nothing about limitations or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and lists key outputs. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could add a bit more context without violating brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey what the agent will receive. It lists the main outputs, which is helpful, but lacks details like currency, units, or how the recommendation is calculated. Given the many sibling financial tools, it could also clarify how this differs from financials_enterprise_value or financials_metrics, but it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (ticker is described as 'Stock ticker'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra syntax, format, or constraints are mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get DCF valuation') and specifies the exact outputs (enterprise value, fair price, margin of safety, buy/sell recommendation). This sets it apart from sibling financial tools like financials_enterprise_value or financials_metrics, which are broader or focus on single metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or mention that it is for equity valuation rather than other asset classes. An agent has no explicit basis for selecting this over financials_enterprise_value or financials_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not state whether the ratio is current or historical, how date range affects results, or any other limitations. Minimal value is added beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could have been slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple ratio fetcher with a clear purpose, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention what the return value looks like, any prerequisites, or how it differs from other financial metrics. Considering the lack of output schema, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (ticker, from, to) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how they should be used or formatted, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('debt-to-equity ratio for a ticker'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling financials_* tools that fetch other metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like financials_metrics or financials_snapshot, which might also provide the debt-to-equity ratio. The description does not mention any exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns historical data, what the response format is, whether it respects date ranges, or any limitations. The single sentence adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action, leaving an agent uninformed about side effects or output characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, making it extremely concise. Given the simplicity of the tool's purpose, this length is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a time series of enterprise values), how the date range and resampling frame are used, or any potential edge cases. An agent would need to rely entirely on schema descriptions and may still lack a clear mental model of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (to, from, frame, ticker) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters interact or what 'frame' resampling implies for enterprise value. Per rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers parameters and the description doesn't need to repeat it, but it also doesn't enrich understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('enterprise value for a ticker'), which precisely identifies the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like financials_market_cap or financials_ebitda because enterprise value is a unique metric, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool computes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling financials_* tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and related metrics like market cap or DCF value. The description implicitly suggests it's for enterprise value, but that's already obvious from the name and does not aid in decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose response format, edge cases (e.g., invalid ticker), or handling of the from/to date parameters. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence containing only the essential action and resource. No filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits any explanation of how the from/to parameters affect the TTM calculation, which is crucial for accurate usage. It also lacks return value expectations since there is no output schema. For a tool with optional parameters, this is a notable gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond saying 'for a ticker', which maps to the required ticker parameter but does not clarify the optional from/to parameters. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get TTM earnings per share for a ticker' uses a specific verb, resource, and target. It clearly identifies the output (TTM EPS) and the input requirement (ticker), making it distinct from sibling financials tools that focus on other metrics like revenue or net income.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as financials_metrics or earnings_history. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state data frequency (e.g., quarterly vs annual), the range of historical data, default period counts, or output format. The description is a bare action statement with no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, containing no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and lacks essential context. It does not explain data granularity, default behavior, or typical use cases, which is particularly problematic given the large number of sibling financial tools. An agent would struggle to determine if this tool meets its needs without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ticker and periods) are already documented. The description adds no further meaning, such as default values, units, or interpretation of 'periods'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get historical revenue for a ticker' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool retrieves historical revenue data for a given stock. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like financials_net_income or financials_income_statement by naming the revenue metric specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as financials_income_statement or financials_metrics, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'get', but it does not disclose any limitations, data format, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no date range is provided. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero extraneous words. It states the core purpose immediately and does not repeat schema details or add noise. This is appropriate for the simplicity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the returned historical data looks like (e.g., OHLCV, formatting, default time range) and any behavioral expectations. It does none of this. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output definition, this is incomplete and leaves an agent guessing about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (ticker, from, to, frame) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('get'), a specific resource ('historical price data'), and the target ('an index'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling price tools for other asset classes (stocks_prices, crypto_prices, etc.) and from indices_quote, which would provide current quotes. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, conditions, or refer to any sibling tools. An agent has no help deciding between this and other *_prices tools beyond the explicit asset class in the tool name. This is a significant omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states a read-like operation ('List') but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, not does it describe pagination, sorting, or error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid exchange). For a list tool, it is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then presents the optional filter. This is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description clearly indicates the purpose. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of ticker symbols'), but for a straightforward listing tool, it covers the essentials. No annotations or output schema exist, so the description is the main source of context, and it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'exchange', which already provides an example. The description says 'optionally filtered by exchange', which essentially restates the schema without adding new meaning. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('index tickers'), with an optional filter. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like indices_list_exchange or other asset-class tickers, though the name implies the domain. It does not restate the name, so it is not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that indices_list_exchange might be for listing exchanges or that indices_gainers/losers are for top performers. The description only says 'optionally filtered by exchange' without explaining when this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the purpose and adds no detail about output format, pagination, news recency, or any side effects. This falls short of the transparency expected for an unannotated tool, especially given the ambiguity of 'get news' (list vs. single article).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. Appropriate for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. It does not clarify whether the response is a list of articles or a single piece, time ranges, or any filtering limitations. While the tool is simple, the lack of any behavioral or output context makes it insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ticker' with 'Stock ticker'. The description's phrase 'by ticker' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get news'), the resource ('news for a specific company'), and the key parameter ('by ticker'). It differentiates from siblings like news_general and news_category by implying company-specific retrieval, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without reading the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for ticker-based company news, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., news_general for broader news) or any exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'unique market values,' which implies deduplication, but gives no details on output format, ordering, or whether the market values correspond to exchanges, types, or something else. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no other structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. It earns the highest score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimal but workable. However, the term 'market values' is ambiguous—it could mean exchanges, market types, or something else—and the lack of context about the function of the tool (e.g., does it return a list of distinct markets?) leaves room for misinterpretation. Given the complexity is low, a 3 is fair, but it could be improved with one clarifying phrase.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them trivially. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description's 'stocks' scope is the only relevance, and it aligns with the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('unique market values for stocks'), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like stocks_list_country, but the name and the phrase 'market values' help narrow the intent. A 4 reflects that it's clear but relies on the tool name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., stocks_list_currency, etf_list_market). An agent must infer that this is for stock market values, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. This is a significant gap for a tool in a large family of similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without indicating read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or return format. There is no mention of pagination or filtering, which is a gap for a list-returning tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It immediately states the purpose in the clearest possible way. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but leaves out what the return values look like (e.g., list of strings, possible values). Since there is no output schema, the description should have compensated with at least a minimal explanation of the return format. This gap prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this score is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns unique type values for stocks, distinguishing it from other stocks_list_* tools (market, country, currency, sector, industry) by specifying 'type'. It is concise and unambiguous in what it retrieves, though it could be more explicit about what 'type' encompasses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools like stocks_list_sector or etf_list_type. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient in a large sibling group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get historical price data' without revealing return format, pagination, default date ranges, or any other operational behavior. Minimal disclosure for a data-fetching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward tool, though it lacks the richer context seen in higher-quality descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify expected return structure, default date ranges, or any constraints, and provides no guidance against sibling options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither compensates nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('historical price data for a stock'), accurately distinguishing it from peer tools like stocks_quote (current quotes) and other asset-class price tools. It is specific and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention exclusions, conditions, or related tools (e.g., stocks_quote for current prices). Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not describe the return format, pagination, error behavior, or any other nuances. The agent lacks critical information about what happens when called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse. The brevity is appropriate for a tool with only one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple tool, the lack of an output schema combined with no annotations means the description must explain the return value. It does not mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., list of customer identifiers, company names) or any additional context. An agent calling this tool would have to guess the response structure, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (ticker), which is already described as 'Stock ticker'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter—it only implies that the ticker identifies the company. Since the schema is sufficient, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get supply chain customers for a company'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supply_chain_suppliers and supply_chain_peers by explicitly naming the customer relationship. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention supply_chain_suppliers or supply_chain_peers, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other. The differentiation is only implicit through the names, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not disclose output format, time range, availability, rate limits, or any side effects. The brevity leaves the agent uninformed about what to expect beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about what 'website traffic data' includes (e.g., metrics, time series, historical vs. current). It does not specify the return format or any limitations, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to know if this tool answers a specific query. For a one-parameter tool, this is still inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (ticker), and the schema already describes it as 'Stock ticker.' The description does not add any extra semantic meaning, such as ticker format, exchange, or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 applies because the schema provides sufficient documentation; the description fails to enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get website traffic data for a company.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (website traffic data) and uniquely distinguishes itself from all siblings, none of which mention web traffic. No tautology or ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Context signals show no sibling mentions this feature, but the description offers no explicit selection criteria or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states that it retrieves unique category values; it does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation (though implied), what the output format is (list of strings?), or any potential limits or edge cases. Without annotations, this is insufficient for transparent behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target resource efficiently. Given the tool's simplicity, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it tells the agent what the tool returns. However, it does not provide any broader context about how the returned categories relate to other crypto tools or what an agent might do with this information. While not strictly necessary for a simple lookup, a touch more context (e.g., typical use cases) would elevate completeness. Still, given the low complexity, this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by trivial default). The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any contradiction or omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (unique category values for crypto), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like crypto_list_type or crypto_list_rating, but the phrase 'unique category values' is distinct enough to suggest a different enumeration. For a zero-parameter tool, this is clear and functional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It neither states conditions for selection nor mentions exclusions. In a context with many sibling list tools (e.g., crypto_list_type, crypto_list_rating), an agent would have no basis to decide between them. This is a significant gap for a domain with numerous similarly named functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing else is disclosed—no pagination, response format, or limitations. For a simple lookup this is minimal, but it does not go beyond the inferred read behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, six-word sentence—front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It contains zero filler words or redundant information. Perfect conciseness for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless lookup tool, this description conveys the essential purpose: retrieving unique rating values for crypto. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though it doesn't specify output formatting or edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('unique rating values for crypto'). It distinguishes from other crypto list tools (category, type) by focusing on ratings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like forex_list_rating. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over forex_list_rating or other list tools. Usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, or describe any side effects, return format, or error behavior. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about how the returned 'type values' might be used (e.g., as filter inputs for other ETF tools). It does not clarify what constitutes a 'type' or the structure of the response, which would help an agent fully understand its role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and thus it does not add any parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, which is already complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique type values for ETFs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like etf_list_market or etf_list_country. It is not a tautology and conveys exactly what data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as whether it should be used to obtain filter values for other ETF queries. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no context about the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or what kind of text is returned (e.g., raw HTML vs clean text). It lacks details that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No fluff or unnecessary detail, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, this is minimally complete. However, it does not hint at the structure of the response (e.g., that it returns raw text) or note any potential size/format issues, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the documentId parameter completely (base64-encoded URL from filing results), covering 100% of the parameter. The description itself adds no additional semantic nuance beyond restating 'by its document ID', so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (full text of an SEC filing document), and the key identifier (document ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like filings_document_sentiment, which analyze sentiment rather than retrieve text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filings_search or filings_recent. No mention of prerequisites, sources of documentId, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'historical net income' but does not disclose output format (e.g., array of values, units, or currency), any rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation (which is implied but not stated explicitly). The minimal nature leaves behavioral expectations opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify whether results are a single value or a series, nor does it mention units or formatting. Given the presence of many similar financial metric tools, this brevity is acceptable but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'ticker' and 'periods' have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical net income for a ticker'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like financials_revenue or financials_ebitda. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for full income statement data one should use financials_income_statement, nor does it specify any context where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer 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.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get historical basic shares outstanding' and does not describe the nature of the return value (e.g., a list of data points, units, frequency), any prerequisites (like API key or subscription), or limitations (such as data availability). Since it is a read operation, some safety is implied by 'Get', but without annotations the description offers no depth beyond that minimal implication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose directly without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. While it is brief, it does not waste words; the brevity is appropriate for such a straightforward tool, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (two parameters) and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., share counts, dates), any units, or the meaning of 'periods' beyond the schema's generic description. An agent might be able to call the tool but would not know how to interpret the response. More behavioral context (such as the format or frequency of data) is needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (ticker and periods) already having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only provides context that the data is historical basic shares. Per the rule, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation, which it does here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get), resource (historical basic shares outstanding), and the specific metric (basic, not diluted). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool financials_shares_outstanding_diluted, and the term 'historical' indicates a time series. An agent can easily separate it from other financials tools without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for basic shares data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the diluted counterpart or any other alternative. It provides no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over similar financial metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if authentication is required, rate limits, or what the actual returned data structure looks like. While not contradictory, it provides minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero unnecessary words. It delivers the core meaning efficiently and is easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is adequate: an agent knows it returns unique country values for forex. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear phrasing, though a note about the return format (e.g., array of strings) would make it fully complete. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, making the schema trivially complete. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unique country values for forex', making it obvious this returns a list of distinct countries. It differentiates from asset-class siblings like stocks_list_country by specifying 'forex', and from forex_list_exchange by specifying 'country'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the return type (e.g., array) or purpose beyond that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forex_list_exchange or stocks_list_country. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it returns a list, any formatting, pagination, or other behavioral characteristics. The description adds no context beyond the core action, which is minimal for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify the return format or clarify whether the data is current or historical. Given the cluster of insider-related siblings, a slightly richer description would help disambiguate exact use cases, though the core purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter `ticker` fully with its description 'Stock ticker', and the description's phrase 'for a ticker' is redundant. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get'), the resource ('insider holders'), and the specific subset ('individuals'), scoped to a ticker. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like insiders_funds and insiders_institutions, which target different holder types, and insiders_ownership/activity/transactions which cover different aspects of insider data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many related insider tools (e.g., insiders_funds, insiders_institutions, insiders_transactions). It only states what it does without explaining selection criteria or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that 'individuals' is the distinguishing factor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not mention potential size, rate limits, or what data is included. This is minimal and leaves agents guessing about the response scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, action-first, with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is functional but not complete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'full asset profile' or how it differs from other profile tools, leaving ambiguity about expected return content. Could benefit from a few clarifying words.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('ticker') with a clear description. The tool description repeats 'ticker' without adding additional context, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('full asset profile') for a ticker. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like profiles_summary or profiles_info by implying a comprehensive dataset. However, 'full' is not precisely defined, so it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving a complete profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like profiles_summary or profiles_statistics. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It simply says 'List stock tickers' without disclosing pagination, response size, ordering, or any other caveats. For a potentially large list endpoint, this is a notable gap—an agent might assume all tickers are returned in one response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the main action is immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers basic behavior but lacks any note on pagination or response structure. Given the large number of sibling ticker tools, a brief clarification that this is the base stock ticker list (distinct from gainers/losers) would improve completeness without bloating the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because both parameters have descriptions with examples. The description adds that they are optional filters, which is redundant but confirms the filtering intent. It does not add new information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List stock tickers' with a clear verb and resource, and the optional filters specify scope. It distinguishes from sibling asset-class tickers (etf_tickers, crypto_tickers) by naming 'stock', but it does not explicitly differentiate from stocks_gainers/losers or the more targeted stocks_list_* tools. Clarity is strong but not perfect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching the full stock ticker list with optional country/exchange filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over stocks_gainers, stocks_losers, or stocks_list_country/exchange. The presence of sibling list tools suggests more specific alternatives exist, but no guidance is given on selecting among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves data, implying a read operation, but says nothing about output format, data frequency, currency, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and resource immediately, which is ideal for an agent scanning many tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The term 'total liabilities' is a standard financial metric, and the context of historical data is clear. However, it could benefit from a note about units or data granularity, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'ticker' and 'periods' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the relationship between 'periods' and the returned data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical total liabilities'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like financials_total_assets and financials_current_liabilities. The word 'historical' signals a time-series scope, which is actionable and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient given the large family of financials tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get top futures gainers' without explaining what constitutes 'top', whether there is a default limit, the sort order, or the return format. An agent cannot infer time horizon (daily, weekly) or any underlying data source. This is a minimal description that leaves key behavioral traits undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence: 'Get top futures gainers'. It is extremely concise with no filler or redundancy. The action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriate and earns a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. It tells the agent what the tool does but omits details that would help in downstream processing, such as the structure of the returned data or any configurable options. Since the tool has no inputs and a clear purpose, the description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of any indication about the response format or data scope (e.g., which futures markets are included) leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema correctly reflects that with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description needs to add nothing in this dimension. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies because schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter ambiguity exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get top futures gainers' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (top futures gainers), and the tool name further specifies the asset class. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar names like 'crypto_gainers' or 'etf_gainers' beyond the explicit 'futures' identifier, which is already in the name. No additional context is provided about what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage, volume), but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is obvious from the name that it is for futures, the description does not mention any exclusion contexts (e.g., 'use for daily gainers') or compare with future-specific tools like 'futures_losers' or 'futures_quote'. The absence of parameters means the only decision is asset class, which is self-evident, so the lack of explicit guidance is not critical but still a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get the full URL') but doesn't explicitly say whether it's read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, or any error handling. While 'Get' suggests retrieval, it doesn't confirm safety or edge-case behavior, which is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single declarative sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise and efficiently structured for quick parsing by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the input (encoded ID) and the output (full URL) implicitly. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior or return format, but given the minimal complexity, it adequately covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Article ID from news results'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance by calling it an 'encoded ID', which hints at format expectations, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. The addition is minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full URL for a news article') with the method ('by its encoded ID'). This differentiates it from sibling news tools like news_general, which fetch lists, and news_ticker, which fetches ticker-specific articles. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: the article ID must come from 'news results', but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use when you have an article ID and need its canonical URL'). It also doesn't mention when not to use it, such as when needing full article content. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only the scope (combined sentiment from three sources) but says nothing about the return format, authentication requirements, response structure, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a tool with one parameter, this is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema and without annotations, the description should at least hint at what the agent will receive in the response. It only states what the tool does, not what the response contains (e.g., sentiment scores, time ranges, or the structure of the combined data). This makes the tool's behavior opaque and incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it and how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'ticker' described as 'Stock ticker'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format, examples, or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get combined sentiment (social, news, analyst) for a ticker'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling tools sentiment_social, sentiment_news, and sentiment_analyst by being the combined version. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need all three sentiment types combined—but it does not explicitly state when to use the individual sentiment tools instead. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the scenario from the word 'combined' rather than receiving clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning read-only nature, output format (e.g., country codes vs. names), ordering, or any other behavioral traits. While not misleading, it is minimal and leaves key details to inference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. However, it does not clarify what 'country values' refers to (e.g., ISO codes) or whether the result is sorted, which might matter for downstream processing. The description is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema. As per the baseline for no parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('unique country values'), and a clear scope ('for ETFs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other attributes (market, currency, sector) for ETFs or other asset classes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as etf_list_market or stocks_list_country. The name implies its purpose, but there is no explicit context on selection criteria or scenarios where this is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'unique' values, which implies deduplication, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or sorting. For a simple list tool this is adequate, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear. This is as concise as possible for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns: unique market values. It does not specify the exact data type or format, but for a list tool parallel to etf_list_country, this is likely sufficient. The ambiguity of 'market' is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by specifying the output is 'unique market values', which is more than the name alone. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('unique market values for ETFs'), distinguishing it from other etf_list_* siblings like etf_list_country or etf_list_currency. However, 'market' is ambiguous—it could refer to exchange, region, or something else—so it doesn't fully disambiguate from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling list tools (e.g., etf_list_country, etf_list_sector). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions that would steer an agent toward or away from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether the list is static, how it is ordered, or if any pagination/limits exist. While this is a simple tool, the description adds no extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence with no wasted words. The key information (list of form types and their descriptions) is front-loaded, making it immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it does not specify the return format (e.g., an array of objects with form type and description fields) or any ordering. For such a simple list tool, this is a minor gap, but additional detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and no schema details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'available SEC form types and their descriptions', making it distinct from sibling tools like filings_forms (which likely retrieve filings for a specific form) or filings_recent (which lists recent filings). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of why an agent would call this (e.g., to discover form types before searching) or any exclusions. The tool's purpose is self-evident, but no usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get unique exchange values', implying a read operation and a list output, but does not disclose details such as return format, sorting, possible empty results, or any error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap despite its simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does in a compact manner, appropriate for its minimal complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It conveys the purpose but does not describe the exact shape of the output (e.g., whether it returns an array of strings or objects). For a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail about the return type would enhance completeness. Still, it meets the minimum viable standard.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get unique exchange values for futures' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it returns a list of distinct exchange identifiers for futures. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like futures_list_currency or indices_list_exchange by the 'futures' prefix and 'exchange' target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for retrieving exchange values for futures, it does not state when to prefer it over related list tools (e.g., futures_list_currency, futures_list_timezone) or mention exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the core action but does not reveal expected response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only lookup this is less critical, but without annotations the description should at least hint at what the output looks like (e.g., list of index names).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently states the purpose without additional fluff, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of what it does. However, it does not describe the output structure or potential limitations (e.g., whether it returns only index symbols or additional details like weights). For a straightforward query, it is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'ticker' is fully documented as 'Stock ticker to find index exposure for.' The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the ticker is used to find indices. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to find which indices hold a specific ticker as a component. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('indices'), making it distinct from sibling tools like indices_components (which lists components of an index) or etf_exposure (which handles ETFs). No ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need to discover which indices include a given ticker, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or routing between sibling tools. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without any details about response format, pagination, limits, or the nature of the lookup (read-only). It does not go beyond the basic action, leaving an agent guessing about output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the intent is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential information: it returns which ETFs hold a given stock. While it does not describe the return format in detail, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the core function. Minor gaps like output structure are acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'ticker' with an example (e.g., AAPL), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating the parameter's role as a 'specific stock ticker'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find which ETFs hold a specific stock ticker'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like etf_holdings (which list holdings of an ETF) and etf_quote (which quotes an ETF). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need to know which ETFs hold a given stock) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it does not contrast with etf_holdings, which would be the reverse direction. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Get unique country values') without disclosing any behavioral details such as output format, pagination, or whether it requires authentication. For a read-only list tool, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without any padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool, the description adequately conveys the expected action and result (unique country values). Since there is no output schema, the description implies a list of country strings, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, it could be more explicit about the return format, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get unique country values for futures' explicitly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (unique country values for futures), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like futures_list_exchange and futures_list_currency. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention that this is specifically for futures (though the name implies it), nor does it contrast with stock_list_country or etf_list_country. There is no explicit 'when to use' or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the action and resource but does not mention any side effects, return format, or limitations. For a read-only listing tool, it is acceptable but lacks explicit statements about output type or special behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete but could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., a list of currency codes). It doesn't mention whether it returns a list or an array, but that is likely evident from the tool's purpose. Overall, it is adequate but could add a word about the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents them (trivially). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but that is not needed since there are none. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to clarify parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('unique currency values for ETFs'), which is both specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_list_market and etf_list_country. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives like etf_list_market or stocks_list_currency. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention return format, default period when year/quarter are omitted, or any limits on data history. 'Get balance sheet statement' is read-only by implication but doesn't clarify behavior beyond that. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently notes optional filters. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the name suggests what it returns, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what happens when year/quarter are omitted (e.g., latest period) and what fields are included. This is not addressed, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent that must decide to call this vs. specific financial metrics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already well documented. The description adds value by explicitly noting that year and quarter are 'optionally' used, clarifying they are not required even though they are not in the required list. This reinforces parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('balance sheet statement'), and a target ('ticker') with optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like income statement or cash flow statement, despite not naming them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving balance sheet data, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., financials_income_statement). The 'optionally by year/quarter' hints at parameter usage but not at selecting this tool vs. others. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action and resource without mentioning any details like output format, ordering, limits, or default time period. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not contradictory; however, it lacks any behavioral nuance beyond the purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that immediately conveys the core function with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not clarify what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage change over a specific period) or how many results are returned. This is a minor gap, but given the presence of similar tools like 'forex_losers' and 'forex_prices', an agent might benefit from a bit more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is complete (100% coverage with no properties). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not lack any parameter-related information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top forex gainers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'forex_losers', 'forex_tickers', and 'forex_quote'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (when you want top gainers) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or use alternatives. Since siblings are numerous and similar, explicit guidance would help, but the purpose alone is fairly clear. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the purpose and does not describe the return format (e.g., array of strings), any ordering, or potential edge cases. This leaves the agent unsure about the output structure, so a score of 2 reflects this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it does, but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of country names or codes, or whether it is sorted). Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so a score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to consume the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema documents everything (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, as the description adds no unnecessary param detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (unique country values), and the scope (stocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_list_country or forex_list_country by the asset class, making it easy for an agent to identify which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name itself implies the asset class, but there is no statement about when to prefer this over other list_country tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and resource, providing no information about output format, data freshness, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. For a simple list tool this might be acceptable, but the description offers no behavioral context beyond the literal function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and target audience in a front-loaded manner, avoiding any redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, obvious use case), the description is adequate. It communicates the core purpose clearly. While it doesn't explicitly mention the return type (e.g., a list of strings), that can be reasonably inferred from the phrase 'unique values'. For a basic enumeration tool, this is sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The schema_description_coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and no further clarification is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get unique industry values for ETFs' clearly states a specific verb (get), resource (unique industry values), and scope (ETFs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like etf_list_market, etf_list_country, etf_list_sector, which return other attribute dimensions, and from stocks_list_industry for the stock counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and description: this tool is for retrieving available industry categories for ETFs, likely to be used as filter values in other ETF queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose etf_list_sector instead), and no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or any side effects. For a simple enumeration tool this is adequate, but it adds no context beyond the literal operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence. Every word carries meaning, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. There is no waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotation, no output schema), the description adequately communicates what the agent will receive (unique exchange values). It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of strings) but that is a minor omission for a straightforward enumeration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the output concept rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique exchange values for forex'). It is distinct from siblings like futures_list_exchange and indices_list_exchange because it explicitly scopes to forex, and from forex_tickers which lists tickers rather than exchange values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over forex_list_country, forex_list_rating, or other forex listing tools, nor does it provide any context about typical use cases. The usage intent is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and output ('unique timezone values') but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, the response format (e.g., array of strings), or any potential limitations. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence with no redundant words. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description adequately conveys the core output ('unique timezone values'). Without an output schema, it could explicitly state the return type (e.g., a list of strings), but the wording strongly implies a collection. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unique timezone values for futures'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling list tools like futures_list_exchange and futures_list_currency by naming the field (timezone). No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need timezone values for futures) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the naming pattern, usage is inferred but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation (retrieving unique currency values) but does not mention any other behavioral aspects, such as output format, sorting, pagination, or that it is a safe read operation. For a zero-parameter read tool, the minimal description is adequate, but it leaves minor uncertainties about the exact return type or structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool, and every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough to allow correct invocation. It clearly communicates the resource (stocks) and the action (getting unique currency values). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the returned data type (e.g., an array of strings), but this is easily inferred from 'currency values'. Overall, the information provided suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no property details. The instruction sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the output is a list of unique currency values, which the empty schema cannot convey. This meets the baseline without requiring further parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique currency values for stocks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from similar list tools like stocks_list_market or stocks_list_country by specifying the currency dimension, and from futures_list_currency or etf_list_currency by the resource (stocks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. There are many sibling list tools covering different asset classes (ETF, futures) and different dimensions (market, country, sector), but the description does not mention any conditions for choosing this one. An agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 implicitly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the output as unique sector values, which is transparent enough for a no-parameter listing tool. However, it does not disclose potential details such as whether results are sorted, include empty sectors, or how many values are returned—though these are minor for such a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately terse for a tool that takes no input. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies what the tool returns (unique sector values for stocks) and differentiates it from similar listing tools. There is no need to describe return formats since no output schema exists, and the tool's simplicity makes the one-line description adequate. A slight improvement could be mentioning that it returns a list of distinct sector names, but that is implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is fully covered with an empty object. No additional semantic guidance is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('unique sector values for stocks'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stocks_list_industry or etf_list_sector by explicitly specifying 'sector values' for stocks, which is a distinct concept from other listing dimensions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like stocks_list_market or stocks_list_country. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool if sector values are needed, but no explicit routing guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('Get income statement') without mentioning response format, potential size, data freshness, or any limitations. This is a minimalist description that leaves much about the tool's behavior undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes all necessary modifiers without excess. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-oriented tool with no output schema, the description does not mention what the income statement contains or how many periods are returned. While the purpose is clear, an agent might need to infer output structure from similar siblings. The absence of any return details means it's adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by noting that year and quarter are optional, implying they are filters. This clarifies the parameter usage beyond the schema, which only describes their types. The word 'optionally' is a meaningful addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'income statement' for a ticker, which is specific and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance sheet or cash flow statement. No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optionally by year/quarter', which provides clear context on how to narrow the query. While it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, the focus on income statement makes usage obvious to an agent. Sibling tools are named but no exclusions are given, so it's slightly above average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' tickers, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any output format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond that it lists tickers. For a simple list tool this is minimally sufficient but not rich; a 3 reflects the lack of explicit behavior disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The main action ('List forex tickers') is front-loaded, and the optional filter behavior is stated succinctly. It is perfectly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any mention of what the output looks like (e.g., a list of ticker symbols), pagination, or how it differs from named siblings like forex_list_exchange. Given the abundance of similar tools in the sibling list, a bit more context about output or disambiguation would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a basic listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (country and exchange) are fully documented in the schema. The description only says they are optional filters, which adds little beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already handles parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('forex tickers'), and explicitly mentions the optional filters (country/exchange). This clearly distinguishes it from stock/ETF/crypto ticker lists, and the phrase 'forex tickers' leaves no ambiguity about the asset class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context: it lists forex tickers and can be filtered by country or exchange. It does not explicitly call out alternatives (e.g., forex_list_exchange or forex_list_country) or state when not to use it, but the optional-filter phrasing implies it is the primary ticker-listing tool. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get unique industry values') but does not add context about return format, empty results, or read-only nature. The description is accurate but minimal, offering no behavioral traits beyond the bare operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is fully front-loaded and delivers all necessary information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is complete. An agent can correctly call it without needing additional details about arguments or return values because none exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 since the description need not compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get unique industry values for stocks' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('industry values for stocks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like stocks_list_sector or etf_list_industry by specifying both the asset class (stocks) and the facet (industry).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_list_sector, stocks_list_market, or other list_* siblings. Since the tool is one of many similar list tools, an agent would need explicit context to choose it correctly, but none is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description bears the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns 'unique' sector values, which is a meaningful behavioral detail (no duplicates). However, it omits any mention of output format, ordering, error handling, or limitations. For a trivial parameterless tool, this is acceptable but not elaborate; the description adds only a single behavioral trait beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence. It directly states the action and the result without superfluous words. It is exceptionally concise and front-loaded, with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it returns (unique sector values for ETFs). It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., array of strings), but given the simplicity and the naming pattern, an agent can reasonably infer the output. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on output format would push it to a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The schema is empty, and the description adds nothing about parameters (since there are none). No further semantic clarification is needed, making the baseline score appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('unique sector values for ETFs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_list_industry or etf_list_country, which target different classification dimensions. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the naming convention and description make the intended use obvious: to retrieve the set of sector categories available for ETFs. This is implied usage rather than explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/axionquant/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/axionquant/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/axionquant/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/axionquant/mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/axionquant/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server