yfinance_get_ticker_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral nuances: fields vary by security type, timestamps converted. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 bulleted categories, but slightly verbose with overlapping categories (e.g., Price/Valuation/Trading). Front-loaded purpose is clear.

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, annotations richness, and output schema implied via field listing, the description is complete. It provides sufficient detail on return fields and behavior for agent decision-making.

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 sole parameter 'symbol' is well-described in the input schema with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 it retrieves comprehensive stock data including specific categories like company info, financials, trading metrics, and governance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing comprehensiveness vs. specialized tools like yfinance_get_financials.

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 use when full stock details are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like yfinance_get_financials or yfinance_get_price_history. No 'when not' or alternative recommendations.

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