Search financial markets

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior by disclosing that the tool returns headlines rather than article text and that the links are dated. This is consistent with openWorldHint (free-text queries may return world entities) and contradicts nothing.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first establishes purpose, the second adds examples and an output limitation, and the third explains downstream usage. Key scoping and behavioral information is front-loaded.

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 annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, the description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: what inputs look like, what outputs contain (headlines, not text), and how to use the results with sibling tools. No essential information for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: limit is fully documented with default, range, and meaning, but query has no schema description. The description compensates for query by providing concrete examples of acceptable values, yet it does not add any explanation of limit beyond what the schema already states, so the value added over structured data is modest.

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 ('Find'), a clear resource ('ticker symbols and dated news links'), and a well-scoped subject ('a company, asset, sector or market topic'). Concrete examples like 'Nvidia' and 'inflation' make the input space unambiguous, and the final sentence positions this tool as the discovery step feeding research_asset/compare_assets.

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 gives explicit usage context by instructing the agent to use the exact returned symbol in research_asset or compare_assets, implying a clear before/after workflow. It does not, however, address when to prefer market_overview, so exclusion guidance for one sibling is missing.

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