finnhub_stock_estimates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency responsibility. It does disclose a premium requirement for get_price_targets, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits or error behavior. The output schema may cover return format, but the description adds only the premium note.

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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-style list of operations. Each line is short and information-dense, with no filler. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately orients the user.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (1 required) with no schema descriptions, so the description needs to explain parameter usage for each operation. It only provides operation names and a premium flag, leaving users to guess how to specify symbol, freq, and project. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing parameter guidance. This is a significant gap for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'operation' parameter by enumerating valid operation names (get_earnings_estimates, get_revenue_estimates, etc.). However, it completely ignores 'symbol', 'freq', and 'project', leaving their purpose and formatting unexplained. With three of four parameters undocumented, the compensation is insufficient.

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 a clear summary of the tool's purpose ('Analyst estimates for earnings, revenue, EBITDA, and price targets') and then lists specific operations (e.g., 'get_earnings_estimates', 'get_price_targets'). This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like finnhub_stock_fundamentals and finnhub_stock_ownership.

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 implies usage for analyst estimates but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives. It lists operations without clarifying which situations call for this tool versus a sibling like finnhub_stock_fundamentals or finnhub_news_sentiment. There are no exclusions, but the guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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