get_statistics_general

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys a read-only operation by saying 'Returns...' and discloses asset-type coverage (stocks and funds/ETFs), which hints at limitations for other asset types. However, it does not go deeper into potential issues like data freshness, invalid symbol handling, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's scope and content. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful, and the structure is logical – from general function to specifics.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview of what is returned, listing major categories (valuation, dividends, risk, etc.). It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it lacks detail on the exact return shape and does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_metrics.

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 100% for the only parameter 'symbol', which is already described as 'Asset identifier (ticker symbol)'. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema – meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 returns 'a consolidated set of key statistics and performance indicators for an asset' and lists specific data categories (price, valuation, dividends, risk, trailing performance), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from narrower siblings by positioning as a 'unified statistics snapshot' covering stocks and funds/ETFs, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternative tools.

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 implies use when a broad statistics overview is needed, saying it 'acts as a unified statistics snapshot' and covers multiple data types. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like get_summary or get_statistics_risks for comparison.

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