finnhub_news_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, pagination, or how sentiment is computed. The description merely names operations and gives no details about what the operations do, what parameters they require, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a multi-operation tool.

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 short and uses a clear bulleted list for operations, which is easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary prose. However, the conciseness comes at the expense of critical details, but that is addressed in other dimensions. As a structure, it is appropriately compact.

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 tool's complexity (six parameters, four operations, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), the description is incomplete. An output schema exists but is not shown, so the agent cannot infer return structures. The description does not explain which operation parameters are required or how they interact. A more complete description would at least outline each operation's purpose and key parameters.

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 six parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptive text. The description lists operations but does not map parameters to operations or explain their meaning (e.g., 'symbol', 'category', 'from_date'). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 opens with 'Company news, market news, and sentiment analysis,' which clearly identifies the tool's domain and resources. It then lists four specific operations, making the scope clear. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like finnhub_market_events or finnhub_alternative_data, so differentiation from alternatives is absent.

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 operations list implies usage contexts (e.g., get_company_news for company-specific news, get_market_news for general market news), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, nor any exclusions. The description provides only a bare enumeration of operations without decision criteria.

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