Market News

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the 'beta endpoint' status and the 48-hour lookback limit, which are useful behavioral constraints, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or any other operational details. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a summary line, an args list, and examples. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and does not ramble. The second sentence ('Get real-time market news...') adds some redundancy but also context, making it acceptable. Overall, it is appropriately concise for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 19 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a partial parameter overview and omits many schema params from its Args list. However, the schema fills that gap. The description adds key constraints (past 48 hours, beta status) but lacks explicit sibling differentiation and does not explain the return format or pagination flow beyond the schema. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 19 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's Args list repeats some schema info and adds example combinations (e.g., q='market crash', sentiment='negative'), but it omits many parameters and does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The examples are mildly additive but not essential.

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 'Fetch financial and stock market news' with specificity about content types and a 48-hour time range, which distinguishes it from the crypto/latest/archive/sources sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against these siblings, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 examples (Apple stock news, market crash coverage, tech earnings) imply common use cases, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or 'use this instead of X' guidance. The usage context is implied rather than direct.

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