Asset profile

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: data uses weekly closes, refreshes once per trading day, excludes intraday data, covers only US-listed stocks/ETFs, and returns an error for unknown tickers. These details clarify what the agent can expect and pre-empt common failure modes.

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 efficient: it front-loads the returned profile fields, then provides routing guidance, coverage constraints, refresh cadence, and error handling. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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 single required parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description is complete. It covers intended use, sibling alternatives, universe restrictions, data frequency, and error behavior, leaving no practical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call this 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 already documents the single symbol parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds extra semantic context by clarifying that the symbol must be a US stock or ETF, describing coverage limits, and noting that unknown tickers produce an error resolvable with resolve_symbol.

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 resource (a single US stock or ETF) and enumerates the metrics returned, including beta, volatility, returns, drawdown, and correlated assets. It also distinguishes itself from find_diversifiers, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate against all siblings like compare_pair or analyze_portfolio.

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 routing guidance: 'For diversification candidates use find_diversifiers.' It also states when the tool should be used versus alternatives by defining the universe and exclusions, and directs users to resolve_symbol for unknown tickers before calling this tool.

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