Get Analyst Forecasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing CSV output behavior ('csv output writes the targets array'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines purpose, second adds CSV detail. No redundant information. The structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

The description lacks details about the response structure (e.g., fields in the targets array, units, time periods). Given no output schema, more context is needed for an agent to use the tool effectively. Annotations are helpful but do not compensate for missing output details.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minor clarification about csv output (writes targets array), but does not elaborate on instrumentId meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves analyst consensus and price targets/recommendations for an instrument. It uses specific verbs and resource types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_candles or get_asset_fundamentals, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_candles for price history, get_asset_fundamentals for broader data). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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