score_tickers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that some scores are auto-calculated while others are manual via overrides, and describes the output format. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, but it is safe and clear enough for an agent.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement, dimension list, parameter explanations, and return structure. It is somewhat lengthy but every part adds value; could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema), the description covers purpose, dimensions, parameters, and output structure adequately. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description summarizes it well.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including defaults, examples (e.g., overrides_json format), and allowed values for style. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool scores tickers across 5 specific dimensions for rotation analysis. It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('tickers') with distinct dimensions, and differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_risk or fetch_prices.

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 for rotation analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions parameters but lacks contextual usage advice.

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