Robinhood Get Ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's function without additional behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and it's perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage context (when to choose this over siblings) and any behavioral notes. For a simple one-parameter tool it's adequate, but it doesn't fully prepare an agent to select it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (symbol), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a stock,' which is already implicit in the parameter name and description. No additional context on formatting or usage is given.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get analyst ratings summary for a stock.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_quote and get_fundamentals by focusing on ratings. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the summary includes, so it's not as rich as an example that explicitly names an alternative.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other Robinhood data tools. An agent must infer from the tool name that it's for ratings, but there's no explicit statement of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives to avoid.

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