scores_for_tickers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: tickers with no score are omitted, results are sorted by quality score descending, default rows are slimmed with truncated descriptions and duplicate rows, and full_rows returns the raw backend payload. It also surfaces authentication/ownership requirements for saved scoring systems.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves into scoping, edge behavior, response shape, and parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the Args/Returns structure makes it easily scannable.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is impressively complete: it defines what is returned, how missing tickers are handled, sort order, response shape components, and the difference between default and full rows. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It explains tickers are exact symbols with examples, scoring_system_id is optional and falls back to default scoring, and full_rows switches to the unmodified backend payload. This adds meaningful behavioral detail absent from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return current scores for a specific list of tickers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like scores_top or scores_show by emphasizing a user-supplied list and the exact-ticker scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have exact ticker symbols and need their current scores. It also explains when to include scoring_system_id and the prerequisite of being signed in and owning that system, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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