uw_etf

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

The description claims 'ticker required' for all actions, but the input schema has zero parameters, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, while annotations indicate read-only behavior, the description does not disclose the return format or any side effects. This is severely misleading.

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 uses a clear bullet-list structure to enumerate actions, making it easy to scan. The first sentence is somewhat generic, but overall it is efficient with no unnecessary fluff.

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 has no output schema and multiple actions, the description fails to explain what each action returns or provide any example output. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to understand the response format, especially for an openWorldHint tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 coverage), yet the description states 'ticker required' without it appearing in the schema. This misleads the agent into thinking a parameter exists when it does not. For zero-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, but the false claim warrants a 1.

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 tool accesses UnusualWhales ETF data and lists specific actions (info, holdings, exposure, etc.), differentiating it from sibling tools that cover other data categories like alerts, congress, darkpool, etc.

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 clear context by listing available actions, making it obvious when to use this tool (for ETF-related queries). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies alternatives for other data types.

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