Get related/peer stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the response structure (peers with qScore, quote, market cap) and explains the meaning of each `by` mode, revealing behavior beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output structure, the second details parameter options and use case. No unnecessary verbiage.

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 no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining the response format (peers with qScore, quote, market cap), the relation modes, and the intended use case. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 low (33%), but the description extensively explains the `by` parameter with its four enum values and meanings ('sector' same sector, 'tag' shared tags, etc.). This adds critical semantics beyond the raw enum values. `limit` is already described in the schema, and `ticker` 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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Find peers of a ticker under `peers`' with specific output fields (qScore, quote, market cap). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on peer/related stock retrieval rather than other quote or screening functions.

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?

Provides explicit use context: 'Use to build a comparison set or find alternatives to a name.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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