Get institutional sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the aggregated nature and signal direction. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the safety profile, though it could mention limitations or data source specifics.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough information about the response content (holder additions, reductions, signal). It could elaborate on the signal's interpretation, but it is sufficient for a straightforward sentiment tool.

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 schema has one parameter, ticker, with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'for a ticker', which confirms the parameter's purpose but doesn't add details like format or requirements. It partially compensates for the schema gap, but the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 provides aggregated institutional sentiment with specifics on holder additions/reductions and a net signal direction. It distinguishes itself from analyst ratings, differentiating it from sibling tools like stoquant_get_analyst_estimates.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a 'smart money' flow read and contrasts it with analyst ratings, giving a clear use case. It doesn't list explicit alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide when to use this tool over others.

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