get_performance_analysis

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explain what 'adjusted' means (adjusted close?), what metrics the analysis produces (returns, correlation, benchmark-relative performance), or whether it is read-only. For a computation tool with no output schema, this is a substantial 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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than an intentional structural choice.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the definition should say more about what the analysis returns and how symbols/benchmark combine. As written, an agent knows the inputs only from the schema and has no idea what output to expect.

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%, so all five parameters, including the optional benchmark_symbol, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how benchmark_symbol affects results), 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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (adjusted performance) with scope (multiple symbols, date range). It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_symbol_comparison or get_historical_stock_prices, which an agent could plausibly pick for similar requests.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools named. With ~20 sibling retrieval tools, the description leaves the agent to infer that this is the multi-symbol comparative analysis option rather than, say, a raw price fetch.

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