getStockGrades

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about grading actions and analyst sources, but does not specify the recency window for 'latest' or how much history is returned, which matters given the existence of a historical grades sibling.

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 reasonably front-loaded, but it includes promotional filler such as 'providing valuable insight into how experts evaluate companies over time' and the redundant mention of the FMP Grades API. The phrase 'over time' also weakens the 'latest' framing.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the core purpose is covered. However, it omits the temporal scope of 'latest' and does not differentiate the tool from closely related grades endpoints, leaving meaningful ambiguity for selection.

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 schema fully documents the single required symbol parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the parameter targets a specific stock symbol but adds no format details, examples, or constraints beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: accessing the latest stock grades from analysts and institutions, including upgrades, downgrades, and maintained ratings. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as getHistoricalStockGrades or getStockGradeSummary.

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?

Usage is implied for retrieving analyst grades for a specific stock symbol, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like getHistoricalStockGrades or getStockGradeSummary.

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