Valuation Rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no further disclosure. The description adds that results are daily and percentile-based, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or data-availability limits; with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a minor gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states what the tool does and the required date format without filler. Parenthetical metrics are compact and the description earns its length.

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 simple read-only range query with strong annotations and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, metric semantics, and date format. There is no output schema, but 'daily valuation rank... percentile' conveys the expected return sufficiently; missing details like output container shape are minor.

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%, and the schema already documents symbol, start/end defaults, yyyymmdd format, and _jq. The description only restates 'start/end in yyyymmdd format' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a concrete resource: daily valuation rank for a security, scoped to PE/PB/PS/dividend yield industry percentile over a date range. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like valuation, valuation_history, or industry_valuation without opening their schemas.

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 phrase 'daily valuation rank... over a date range' clearly frames when the tool is appropriate: historical valuation-percentile queries for a single symbol. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to prefer valuation_history or industry_valuation), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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