Search eToro investors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds meaningful behavior on top: 'Public data only; it places nothing', a caveat that risk score is eToro's own measure and past performance is not a forecast, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted investor free text. It stops short of pagination/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then scoping notes, then safety caveats. The dense stats enumeration is efficient, though the trailing trust/safety sentences are somewhat stacked and could tighten slightly.

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, the description usefully enumerates returned stats (gain, risk scores, copiers, win ratio, drawdown, leverage mix), which covers the return side. However, for a 14-parameter tool with sparse schema descriptions, the filter semantics and paging behavior are not explained, leaving real gaps.

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 only 29% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains 'period' as the stats window and 'sort' syntax, but the numerous filter parameters (instrumentPctMin/Max, maxDaily/MonthlyRiskScore bounds, countryId, page/pageSize) are left to bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds investors (people others can copy) by performance and risk filters') and enumerates the returned stats, making it clearly distinct from the sibling etoro_get_investor (single lookup) and etoro_search_instruments. An agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: filters are performance/risk based, 'period' sets the statistics window, and 'sort' takes a leading minus for descending (e.g. '-copiers'). It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when not to use it versus etoro_get_investor.

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