get_ticker_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: it returns a 'selected analytics payload with a compact summary', and it explains that views exist for skew and hv_regimes, and that days applies only to certain analyses. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, describe the output structure, or mention error handling, rate limits, or other side effects. The 'compact summary' wording is vague.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a bullet-style list of eight analyses, an Args section, and a Returns line. Every major section serves a purpose, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. It loses one point because the analysis list and Args section have slight redundancy (e.g., correlation's compare_with appears in both), but otherwise it is tight and clear.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of contextual information. It covers the main behavior and parameter constraints, but it leaves significant gaps: the Returns line only says 'selected analytics payload with a compact summary', without detailing what each analysis returns or what 'compact summary' contains. It also doesn't explain the meaning of the different views (e.g., 'history', 'curvature'), error conditions, or data provenance. For an 8-analysis tool, this is incomplete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section does exactly that: it explains every parameter (ticker, analysis, expiration, days, view, compare_with) with format constraints (YYYY-MM-DD, trading days) and applicability notes (which analyses use which parameters). The analysis list also expands on the allowed values for the analysis parameter. This is an exemplary compensation for an otherwise bare 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-resource phrase, 'Get a specific per-ticker analytics view,' then enumerates eight distinct analyses (skew, dividends, borrow_rate, correlation, etc.), making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which are narrow single-analytics 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 description gives clear in-tool guidance for parameter selection, such as 'expiration: Optional YYYY-MM-DD filter (greeks_exposure only)' and 'compare_with: Second ticker for pairwise correlation (correlation only)'. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of a sibling like get_gex or get_charm_exposure, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Since many siblings overlap with the eight analyses, this is a notable gap.

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