sentiment_social

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.