get_advances_declines

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

With no annotations, the description solely bears the burden of disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves advances vs declines without mentioning data source, time period, or any limitations. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

For a simple parameterless tool, the description captures the essence, but it lacks details on output structure or interpretation (e.g., raw numbers or ratio). This is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds no information about the output format, which could be helpful for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get market breadth — advances vs declines' clearly states the tool retrieves the aggregate number of advancing and declining stocks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_top_gainers that return individual stock lists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_gainers or get_most_active. However, the name and description imply it's for market breadth analysis, which is a standard use case.

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