get_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful constraint—'up to 50 tickers'—and the 1-4 stage semantics, which goes a little beyond the raw schema. However, it does not state that the call is read-only, what happens when more than 50 tickers are passed, how errors are handled, or how current/fresh the stage values are, so the behavioral picture is only partially painted.

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 short sentences: the first explains the tool's purpose and the stage scale, the second gives the input format and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to make the call. Yet it never states that this is the 'current stage' tool, nor does it address the >50-ticker behavior or mention when to prefer get_stage_history. These gaps mean an agent may still hesitate when selecting between get_stage and its sibling.

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 parameter schema only says 'tickers' is a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description materially compensates by specifying that the string must be comma-separated, giving a concrete example ('AAPL,MSFT,NVDA'), and setting the 50-ticker limit. This turns a bare schema slot into a directly actionable parameter specification.

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 resource ('stage analysis'), defines the output scale (1=Basing, 2=Advancing, 3=Topping, 4=Declining), and includes the 'up to 50 tickers' constraint. It is clear about what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly say 'current stage' or name sibling alternatives such as get_stage_history, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance for when to use this tool versus get_stage_history, get_macro, or get_pnf. The description gives an input example but does not say whether to reach for this tool for current stages only, nor what an agent should use if historical stage data is needed. Selection advice is effectively absent.

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