get_stock_beta

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, but it explains the calculation output, which is a minor addition.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information: what is calculated, use case, and interpretation. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description effectively lists the outputs (Beta, correlation, volatility). It covers the key aspects but does not specify the return format or additional details like data source, which could be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already specifies. It mentions 'relative to market' and 'annualized volatility' but does not link them to the parameters.

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 that the tool calculates Beta coefficient, correlation coefficient, and annualized volatility for a stock, and explains the interpretation of Beta. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_stock_correlation, which may cause confusion.

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 it is used for 'risk-adjusted valuation and asset allocation,' providing some context. But it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving usage guidance implied.

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