analyze_stock

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details output content but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The examples are helpful but transparency is moderate.

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 well-structured with a brief intro then bullet points, plus Args/Returns sections. It is concise yet informative, though a bit verbose in listing data points.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return details. However, it lacks context on when results might be empty or errors (e.g., invalid symbol). The description is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: it explains the parameter 'symbol' as a stock ticker with examples (e.g., 'AAPL'). This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 provides comprehensive stock analysis including specific data points (price, technicals, fundamentals, options). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_insider_buys or screen_options_wheel by its broad scope, but does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 vs. alternatives. It lists what it provides but does not specify scenarios (e.g., 'For a quick overview, use this; for insider trading, use get_insider_buys').

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