get_ticker_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ranking method, the meaning of latestAiScore, that opportunityScore is not available here, and the cost/authentication requirement. This is substantial, honest disclosure beyond a simple 'returns related tickers'.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second adds essential distinctions and cost info. Every word earns its place.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains ranking, scoring, the alternative for opportunityScore, and authentication. It doesn't elaborate on 'co-occurring scan symbols' or pagination behavior, but the schema covers pagination and the main use case is clear. Slight gap is acceptable.

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%, so parameters are already fully described. The description adds only the context that results are ranked by correlationScore, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of parameters like days and symbol, but it does not add new parameter-specific meaning 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's function: it returns co-occurring scan symbols ranked by Pearson price correlation vs a target. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the ranking metric (correlationScore) and explicitly pointing to get_ticker for opportunityScore.

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 provides a clear alternative: 'use get_ticker for opportunityScore', which tells the agent when not to use this tool. It also mentions authentication requirements (API key or x402). However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_ticker_network or other related-ticker tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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