get_etf_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get ETF exposure data' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify details like data format, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, with no wasted space. This efficiency aligns well with best practices for tool descriptions, though it may sacrifice completeness for brevity.

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 complexity implied by financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'exposure data' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured support beyond the input schema, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'ticker' parameter clearly documented as 'ETF ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra input from the description.

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 'Get ETF exposure data' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ETF exposure data), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'exposure data' entails compared to sibling tools like 'get_etf_holdings' or 'get_etf_weights', leaving room for ambiguity. It's not tautological but remains vague in distinguishing its exact scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get_etf_holdings' and 'get_etf_weights', it's unclear if this tool overlaps or serves a distinct purpose, and there are no explicit instructions on prerequisites or exclusions. This absence of contextual direction limits effective tool selection.

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