etf_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It lists the profile components (fees, holdings, risk, etc.), which gives an idea of the return content, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential limitations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Full ETF screening profile') and efficiently lists the included data categories. Every phrase adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a useful overview of return content but lacks critical context about parameter usage and differentiation from similar profile tools. The agent would need additional information to reliably invoke it.

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 only one parameter, instrument_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning of instrument_id, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., internal ID vs. exchange ticker). This leaves the agent to infer semantics from the parameter name alone.

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 identifies the tool as providing a full ETF screening profile, enumerating key data categories like fees, holdings, and risk statistics. It distinguishes from stock or fund profiles but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling etf_profile_by_slug, which accepts a slug instead of an ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etf_profile_by_slug or fund_profile. The description implies usage for ETF screening but does not specify prerequisites, ID usage, or exclusion criteria.

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