Find diversifiers

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

Although annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the raw list may contain leveraged/inverse ETNs, volatility products, and illiquid micro-caps, so name and kind must be checked before presenting results. It also discloses weekly-close data, once-per-day refresh, and error behavior for unknown tickers. This goes well beyond the 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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, output elements, caveats, coverage scope, data frequency, and error handling. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the warnings are packed into a compact but readable warning block. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential operational knowledge: coverage universe, refresh cadence, error behavior, and important content warnings. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and to interpret results safely.

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% and the single parameter has a clear description ('Ticker to diversify away from, e.g. QQQ'). The tool description adds extra meaning by specifying that the ticker must be a US stock or ETF and that unknown tickers error out. This is valuable enrichment beyond the schema field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it finds assets with the lowest or most negative 3-year correlation to a given US stock or ETF. It also mentions the output includes name and kind, making the tool's function and scope clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like symbol_profile or compare_pair.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: US-listed stocks and ETFs only, no crypto, no foreign listings, no intraday data. It also tells the agent to resolve unknown tickers via resolve_symbol first, which is direct cross-tool guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings for related tasks, but the conditions are strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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