get_stock_analysis

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 'comprehensive technical analysis' but lacks details on what that entails, such as response format, data sources, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns complex data.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the core function without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring key details more explicitly, but it earns a high score for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of technical analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive' means, what indicators or recommendations are included, or how results are formatted, making it inadequate for guiding an agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters for stock ticker and period but doesn't elaborate on semantics like what 'comprehensive' includes or how indicators are calculated. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive technical analysis for a stock'), including what it provides ('indicators and recommendations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_historical_data' or 'get_stock_info', which might also provide stock-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_historical_data' or 'get_stock_info', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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