get_analyst_ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the data source (Finviz) and what is shown, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only (though likely), rate limits, or data freshness. It also doesn't explain what happens with invalid tickers or missing ratings.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The args section is clearly laid out and efficient, with no fluff.

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 tool is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., unknown ticker) and doesn't specify whether the output is ordered or limited, which could matter for agents.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It describes the 'count' parameter as 'Number of recent ratings to return (default 10)', which is helpful. For 'ticker', it just says 'Stock ticker symbol'—minimal but adequate. No format details like uppercase or exchange suffix are provided.

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 gets analyst price targets and ratings for a stock from Finviz, listing the specific fields (date, analyst firm, rating action, price target). It is distinct from siblings like get_stock_news or get_insider_filings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 mentions it is useful for gauging sell-side sentiment and consensus target price, implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when to use get_stock_news for news sentiment).

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