sentiment_news

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.