scores_show

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds only that the result is 'score row(s)' for one ticker, which is mildly informative but does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or data interpretation.

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 one concise sentence, front-loads the key action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 simple single-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the essential operation. However, without an output schema, the vague 'score row(s)' does not fully explain what the response contains, and usage context relative to sibling tools is absent.

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 must compensate. It minimally clarifies that the ticker parameter refers to a single ticker, but it omits format requirements, case sensitivity, or accepted symbol forms.

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 clearly states the action (Return), resource (score rows), and scope (a single ticker). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scores_list and scores_for_tickers by the 'single ticker' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as scores_for_tickers, scores_list, or score_compute. The single-ticker constraint is implied, but there is no explicit context for choosing it over alternatives.

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