etf_profile_by_slug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Full ETF screening profile' without detailing return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The example slug is helpful but does not cover behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and provides an example. No fluff, each word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description provides a clear purpose and example. However, it lacks details on what a 'screening profile' contains, how to obtain a slug, or any relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with some gaps for full understanding.

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 has minimal info ('Slug' string), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by giving a realistic example slug format (spdr-sp-500-ucits-spyl-xeta), which clarifies the expected structure of the slug parameter better than the bare schema.

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 states a clear, specific resource: 'Full ETF screening profile' for a display slug, with a concrete example slug. This distinguishes it from siblings like etf_profile (likely by ticker) and stock_profile_by_slug, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etf_profile or fund_profile_by_slug. It does not mention that this is for slug-based lookups or provide context about identifiers. Usage context is entirely absent.

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