get_stock_flow_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get flow alerts for a ticker', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'flow alerts' entail (e.g., real-time vs. historical). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get flow alerts for a ticker') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately sized for its purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 of financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'flow alerts' are, the return format, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and results.

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 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 flow alerts for a ticker' clearly states the action (get) and resource (flow alerts) with a specific scope (for a ticker), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_stock_flow_recent' or 'get_option_trades_flow_alerts', which also involve flow-related data, leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from other flow-related tools in the sibling list. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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