Get Asset Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the tool returns company, sector, industry, and other metadata, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already cover.

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 short and well-structured, with the core purpose stated early and supporting detail in the second sentence. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficient 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by addressing what happens when no profile exists for the symbol, but that is a minor gap.

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%, with both 'symbol' and 'data_source' clearly documented and given examples. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'asset profile information' for a specific symbol, and elaborates with concrete content examples such as company information, sector, and industry. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_symbol_data, upsert_asset_profile, and delete_asset_profile.

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 implies usage when needing detailed profile metadata for a specific symbol, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_symbol_data or lookup_symbols, nor does it state exclusions such as 'not for price history'. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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