romaco_thesis_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently discloses that data comes from yfinance (free), analysis is deterministic (no LLM, no hallucination), and that the top symbol is automatically loaded into session. No contradictions.

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 7 sentences, which is reasonably concise given the complexity. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then details the method, then post-processing steps. Slightly verbose but each sentence serves a 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format (ranked table by R/R × confidence), the data source, the analysis method, and the recommended follow-up actions. The disclaimer is included.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds default values for lookback (300) and timeframe ('1d'), which are not in the schema. It also provides practical examples for the symbols parameter. This adds value beyond 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 clearly states the tool analyzes multiple tickers, compares setups, and returns a ranked table sorted by R/R × confidence. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool romaco_thesis (single ticker) by emphasizing 'multiple tickers in one call'. The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies when to use this tool (for multiple tickers) versus alternatives (romaco_thesis for a single ticker). It provides explicit instructions on what to do after returning results (offer to draw a chart, call other tools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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