financial_news

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It only mentions 'real-time' and RSS feeds but does not state read-only nature, result structure, or any constraints. The description is insufficient for fully understanding behavior.

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 short, directly states purpose, and lists parameters in a clear argument block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 and low complexity (3 optional params), the description covers the tool's inputs and purpose. However, it omits what the return data looks like (e.g., news title, date, source) and any pagination or ordering details. A simple 'returns list of news items with headline, source, and URL' would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: symbol is an optional filter with example values, category lists possible feed categories ('crypto', 'stocks', 'all'), and limit sets max items. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 it provides 'real-time financial news from RSS feeds' and lists specific sources (Reuters, CoinDesk). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform analysis (e.g., backtest_strategy, market_sentiment) by focusing on raw news fetching.

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 when real-time news is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_sentiment or market_snapshot. No 'when not to use' or sibling comparisons are given.

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