list_benzinga_consensus_ratings

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it mentions 'consensus ratings' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., aggregated analyst opinions, scoring methodology) or any operational details 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 (8 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, it lacks sufficient detail on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'for a ticker', which corresponds to the required 'ticker' parameter, but it does not explain the purpose or usage of the other 7 parameters (e.g., date filters, limit, params), leaving them largely undocumented.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('Benzinga consensus ratings for a ticker'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_benzinga_ratings', 'list_benzinga_analyst_insights'), which would require specifying what makes 'consensus ratings' distinct.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_benzinga_ratings', 'get_ticker_details'), there is no indication of the specific use case for consensus ratings, prerequisites, or comparisons to other data sources.

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