etf_exposure

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.