get_correlation_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the output type (correlation matrix) and symbol count constraint. It fails to mention data source, rate limits, return computation assumptions, or handling of edge cases like missing data.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices some necessary detail, balancing conciseness with completeness.

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 complexity (5 params, no param descriptions, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, though the existence of an output schema slightly reduces the burden.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters (3 required) and 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning to the 'symbols' parameter by noting the 2-50 constraint. It does not explain 'start', 'end', 'method', or 'frequency' beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb 'Return', the resource 'pairwise return-correlation matrix', and the constraint '2-50 symbols'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_indicators and get_ohlcv.

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 implies usage for correlation analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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