market_analyze

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by explaining graceful degradation (if components are unavailable), score range (-100 to +100), and the composite nature, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with an overview, behavioral details, and arguments/examples. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with key information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 composite nature, schema coverage, annotations, and output schema existence, the description adequately covers return values, parameter usage, and graceful degradation. No major gaps identified.

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?

Input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (symbol and response_format). Description adds examples and clarifies response_format options ('markdown' vs 'json'), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it performs composite market analysis combining momentum, news, and earnings. Verb ('analyze') and resource ('market') are specific, and the composite nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_quote or market_news.

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?

Description explains it provides a combined score using quote, news, and calendar, implying use when a consolidated verdict is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like individual data tools.

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