getTipRanksPointInTimeRatingsBySymbol

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the collapse logic (latest active call per analyst up to the date) and the fields returned (rank, success rate, average return), which is useful beyond the annotations, but does not address pagination caps or currency handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The second sentence packs the collapse semantics and returned metrics efficiently, though it is a dense run-on.

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 read-only, single-required-param retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete: it does not mention pagination behavior, the 5000 limit cap, or how currency conversion affects outputs (the nonadjusted flag). These are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the agent under-informed about result shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has prose in the schema; the description only implies the symbol/date semantics through 'point-in-time' and 'as-of date' without adding format or default details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (point-in-time summary of analyst ratings) for a symbol, and identifies the FMP/TipRanks source. It does not name or contrast with neighboring TipRanks siblings (e.g., getTipRanksPointInTimeRatingsByAnalyst), leaving that distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

Implies usage via 'point-in-time' and 'as-of date' semantics, but contains no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many TipRanks siblings. The agent must infer that this is the symbol-keyed path versus the analyst-keyed one.

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