get_stock_max_pain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify any traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with unknown behavioral characteristics.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'max pain data' means, how it's used, or what the return values look like (e.g., numerical value, structured data). Given the complexity implied by financial terms and lack of structured support, 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 for its single parameter ('ticker'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying the tool operates on a ticker, which is redundant. With 0 parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 max pain data for a ticker' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('max pain data'), but it's vague about what 'max pain data' entails (e.g., is it a price point, options data, or something else?). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_stock_option_chains' or 'get_stock_volatility_stats', which might overlap in financial data contexts.

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. Given siblings like 'get_stock_option_chains' and 'get_stock_volatility_stats' that might relate to options or stock data, the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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