get_factor_scores

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry transparency burden. It only states it 'gets' data, implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side-effects, or any behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with verb and object, no redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides minimal context: lists factor classes and horizons but does not explain what factor t-scores represent, how to interpret results, or any limitations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about factor classes and multiple horizons but repeats information already implied in schema (horizons enum). No additional clarification of parameter behavior or interactions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'factor t-scores for an asset' with explicit enumeration of 8 factor classes (CORR, EFF, FLOW, FUT, OB, OPT, TR, VOL) and multiple horizons, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools which focus on metrics, signals, or liquidity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_composite_rankings or get_regime_analysis. Lacks explicit when-not, prerequisites, or context for selection among 20 siblings.

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