Cross-checked: TA + sentiment + price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that the price leg is dual-sourced while analysis and sentiment legs stay single-source and are labelled per field, and that data.news is Marketaux-only and returns empty with an explanation when no token is present. It stops short of covering failure modes per leg, latency, or rate limits.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the rest is organized into source/no-key notes plus Args/Returns. Most sentences earn their place, though the Returns block partially restates envelope keys that the output schema already provides.

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?

This is a multi-source composite with no annotations, and the description covers the sourcing, fallback, and degradation behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess at. With an output schema present, the envelope enumeration in Returns is a minor redundancy rather than a gap; only per-parameter value formats remain thin.

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 schema only supplies bare 'string' types with defaults, so the description must compensate. It does add domain meaning (symbol is a ticker, exchange is a TradingView exchange prefix, timeframe is a TradingView interval), but gives no format examples, no allowed timeframe values, and no exchange list, leaving real ambiguity for the agent.

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 opening line names the exact composite ('Technical analysis, news and sentiment in one call, cross-checked on price'), which immediately distinguishes it from the single-leg siblings technical_analysis, stock_news, and market_sentiment. It also specifies the mechanism (TradingView read + Finviz close) so an agent knows what is actually being combined.

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 makes clear this is the tool to pick when all three views are wanted in one call, and it gives the operational conditions that affect whether to call it (no API key needed; Marketaux used only when MARKETAUX_API_TOKEN is set, otherwise Finviz local scoring). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or state when to use the narrower single-purpose tools instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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