analyze_taiwan_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that output is strictly structured evidence, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the analysis is produced, or whether there are latency, data, or side-effect considerations. This is minimal but non-empty 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?

The description is extremely terse and front-loaded: it states the domain, supplies examples, and adds the key output constraint in two short clauses. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

A minimal call is feasible because the required 'stock' parameter has examples and 'horizon' has a default. Still, the description does not explain what the structured evidence contains, what horizon values are permitted, or any prerequisites, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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%, and the description compensates for the 'stock' parameter with format examples such as '2330', '3706.TW', and '華邦電'. The optional 'horizon' parameter is not explained beyond its schema default of '1d', leaving time-range semantics ambiguous.

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 identifies Taiwan-stock analysis as the resource and provides concrete examples of accepted ticker formats. It stops short of specifying what kind of analysis is performed, but it is not tautological and is distinguishable from the Osaka/Nikkei sibling at a market level.

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?

Usage is implied by the Taiwan-stock domain and the examples, and the sibling analyze_osaka_nikkei suggests a geographic split. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_market_data or the prediction tools, and it provides no exclusion conditions.

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