Finviz-only: peer group

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (Finviz-only, single-source) and the response envelope label ('FINVIZ' with 'peers'), which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes for invalid tickers, rate limits, peer ordering, or how a partial list is handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one line followed by a compact Args/Returns block, so there is no filler prose. The docstring scaffolding is slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool but remains scannable.

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 existence reduces the need to document return values, and for a simple two-parameter read tool the definition is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently in ambiguous cases (peer ordering, limit semantics, source-only caveats).

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%, so the description must explain both parameters and largely does not. 'symbol: Ticker' and 'limit: Maximum peers' merely restate the parameter names, omitting the default of 12, ticker format expectations, and what happens when limit exceeds the available peer set.

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 states a specific resource ('Finviz peer group for a ticker') and a concrete verb-equivalent (fetch peers), which is distinguishable from siblings like stock_ownership or stock_quote. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of related tools such as stock_ownership or market_snapshot. The parenthetical 'Finviz-only, single-source' hints at a data-source constraint but names no alternative tool when a non-Finviz or multi-source view is wanted.

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