stock_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists content categories and does not state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what the return structure looks like. The absence of this context makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate side effects or constraints.

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, concise sentence that quickly communicates the tool's scope. It front-loads the core purpose and lists content areas without unnecessary detail. The structure is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the purpose from the contents.

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 description is insufficient for a tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation. It lists broad categories but not the specific fields or data format, and it does not explain the input parameter or how to use the tool correctly. Sibling tools and the need for instrument IDs are not addressed, leaving significant gaps.

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 for parameters is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what instrument_id represents or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the tool's focus on stocks and the existence of a generic 'instrument' sibling suggest ambiguity. The description should clarify that instrument_id refers to the stock instrument identifier.

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 indicates the tool provides a comprehensive stock profile, listing key content areas such as company identity, market cap, financial history, earnings, dividends, and news. However, it lacks a specific verb and does not differentiate from the sibling tool stock_profile_by_slug, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_profile_by_slug, indicators, or quote. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as how to obtain the instrument_id, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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