rank_by_ta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds that weighting is used but does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or output format, relying mostly on annotations for behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence precisely states the action, and the second provides the use case. 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?

The description and schema cover all parameters and the tool's purpose. However, the output format is not described (e.g., what scores look like), which would help the agent interpret results, especially since there is no output schema.

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 100% parameter description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining default behavior for weights (unspecified timeframes default to weight 1) and providing default timeframes, which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Rank', resource 'symbols', and method 'weighted technical analysis scores across timeframes'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ta_summary (individual symbol) and screen_* (filtering) by focusing on comparative ranking.

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 says it's useful for comparing symbols by TA strength, which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_ta_summary for detailed analysis or screen_* for filtering.

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