finnhub_alternative_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what each operation returns (e.g., 'Get ESG scores') but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data coverage limitations, required authentication, or side effects. The operation list is more structural than behavioral.

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 well-structured, with a brief overview followed by a clear bullet list of operations. It is front-loaded with the main data categories. However, the first line 'ESG scores, social sentiment, supply chain, and patents' is somewhat redundant with the operation list, which prevents a perfect 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 tool with multiple operations and three parameters, the description lacks essential context such as which parameters are required for each operation, any constraints on symbol/project, and how to map operations to actual data needs. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves critical wiring unexplained, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and lists only 'symbol', 'project', and 'operation' with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain which parameters apply to which operations, what format symbol should take, or the meaning of 'project'. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 provides ESG scores, social sentiment, supply chain, and patents, and enumerates specific operations like get_esg_scores. This gives a specific list of resources and actions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like finnhub_news_sentiment or finnhub_stock_fundamentals.

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 lists operations but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or which sibling tool might be more appropriate (e.g., finnhub_news_sentiment for sentiment). The implied usage is via operation names only, but no explicit direction is given.

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