Get quant analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context that the output is under `data` and enumerates the metrics included, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core function, followed by usage guidance and a sibling link. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With a simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential output contents ('under `data`'), use cases, and relationship to a key sibling. It lacks a detailed return structure but is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter (ticker) and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the tool operates 'for a ticker', but provides no details on format or examples. This is adequate but minimal for a self-evident parameter.

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 the tool provides quantitative analytics for a ticker, listing specific contents (factor exposures, correlation/quality metrics, risk decomposition). It distinguishes itself from the sibling stoquant_get_qscore by noting it complements the verdict with underlying detail.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for portfolio-construction and factor-tilt questions, and contrasts with stoquant_get_qscore (verdict) by positioning this tool as providing the underlying quant detail. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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