Equity Forecast

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

Annotations confirm read-only/idempotent safety, while description adds crucial behavioral context: 'model-based' clarifies these are projections not market data, and the second sentence details the API key authentication mechanism (headers or query param) and Pro tier selection logic that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Extremely compact two-sentence structure with zero redundancy. First sentence covers purpose, scope, and resource types; second covers authentication. Every word earns its place, and critical 'model-based' qualifier is front-loaded.

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?

Adequate but incomplete given the tool's moderate complexity and 0% schema coverage. The description covers the domain and auth mechanism, and presence of output schema excuses return value documentation. However, the missing timeframe parameter semantics and lack of differentiation from 'stock_analysis_all' leave notable gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate. It successfully maps the indicator values (sp_500, volatility_vix, volatility_russell_2000) to human-readable names in the first sentence. However, it completely omits the 'timeframe' parameter, leaving its monthly/quarterly/yearly options and default behavior undocumented.

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?

Clear verb 'outlook' plus specific resources (S&P 500, VIX, Russell 2000) and scope (US equity). 'Model-based, not live prices' effectively distinguishes from real-time data tools. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling 'stock_analysis_all' which also deals with equities, leaving ambiguity between forecast models vs. analysis tools.

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 phrase 'model-based, not live prices' provides implicit guidance on when to use (for forecasts, not current trading). However, there is no explicit comparison to siblings like 'stock_analysis_all' or other forecast tools, nor any 'when-not-to-use' guidance or prerequisites beyond the API key mention.

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