get_fund_sector_weighting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the operation is a retrieval (non-destructive) and states the return type can be None. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, data source freshness, or any potential side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence plus a clean args/returns format. No extraneous information is present, and every word serves a purpose. Ideal for an AI agent parsing.

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 one parameter and a simple return type (FundSectorWeighting or None). The description covers both sufficiently. Output schema exists (not shown) but is not needed for completeness here. Minor missing info (e.g., example ticker format) does not detract significantly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'ticker' is 'The symbol of the fund,' which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's empty description. This is helpful and compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Retrieve sector weighting data for a specific fund,' specifying the verb (Retrieve), the resource (sector weighting data), and the scope (specific fund via ticker). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fund_asset_class_holdings or get_fund_top_holdings.

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, lacks prerequisites, and does not mention when not to use it. With many sibling tools covering fund and sector data, explicit usage direction is missing.

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