stock_profile_by_slug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a 'full stock screening profile' without detailing response structure, whether it is strictly read-only, error behavior, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a relevant example. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately identifies the input and result type. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what fields or sections are included in the 'full stock screening profile', nor does it address edge cases like invalid slugs. It is minimally viable but has clear 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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name 'slug' with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it is a 'display slug' and giving a concrete example ('wartsila-b-wrt1v-xhel'), which conveys both meaning and format. More detail on slug patterns would be useful, but the example is meaningful.

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 identifies the resource as a 'full stock screening profile' and scopes it to a 'display slug', with a concrete example. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', but the intent is clear and it distinguishes from sibling 'stock_profile' by the slug-based key.

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 'for a display slug' provides clear context for when this tool should be used: when a display slug like 'wartsila-b-wrt1v-xhel' is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the slug-specific usage is explicit enough to guide selection among siblings.

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