get_stock_signal_score

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

No annotations provided. The description only lists components and outputs, lacking disclosure of behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. As a data retrieval tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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?

Description is a bullet list, front-loaded with the main result. It includes detailed component names, which could be seen as slightly verbose but still reasonably concise. Every element adds value.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown) so return values are covered. Description lists return fields adequately for a scoring tool. However, it lacks usage context and does not guide the agent on when this composite score is appropriate compared to other tools.

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?

Only one parameter 'symbol' with no schema description (0% coverage). However, the meaning is obvious (stock ticker). The description does not add further meaning, but for a single, clear parameter, this is acceptable.

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 it returns a stock ranking score (0-100) with signal, automation_rank, top supports/risks, and full component breakdown. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_stock_brief or technical_indicators by being a composite score from multiple signals.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many analysis tools (check_signal_outcomes, evaluate_signal_quality, get_signal_accuracy) but the description provides no context for selection.

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