getMarketRiskPremium

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'access' and does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or potential result variations. With annotations covering safety, the description fails to add significant value.

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 consists of two concise sentences that convey the tool's purpose and use case without extraneous information. It is well-structured 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 mentions 'specific dates' but the input schema has no parameters to specify dates, creating confusion. Additionally, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the market risk premium is presented (e.g., a single value, series, etc.). This completeness gap is significant given the contradiction between description and schema.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the calibration guide, 0 parameters scores a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist.

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 accesses the market risk premium for specific dates using the FMP API. It provides context on the metric's financial relevance. While the name itself is descriptive, the description reinforces the purpose without explicitly differentiating from siblings, but the unique metric name suffices.

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 'use this key financial metric to assess additional return expected,' but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate when not to use it. There is no exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools.

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