get_correlation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes both correlation and return statistics, but says nothing about computation method, data source, latency/cost, or error behavior for invalid symbols. Useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the use case, then examples. No filler, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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 output schema, the description partially covers return values by naming 'getiri istatistikleri' alongside the correlation. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly given full schema coverage, though the exact contents of the return statistics remain unspecified.

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 the schema already documents period, interval, and the '.IS' symbol convention. The description's example pairs (THYAO.IS, BIST100) / (BTC-USD, XU100.IS) reinforce symbol formatting but add little beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it computes the price correlation and return statistics of two assets. It enumerates the asset classes accepted (hisse, endeks, kripto, para birimi), and no sibling tool does the same computation, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It states the concrete use case ('Portföy çeşitlendirme / bağımlılık analizi için kullanılır') and supplies worked examples of argument pairs. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. analyze_portfolio), which keeps it short of a 5.

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