piotroski_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the output and criteria, but doesn't disclose whether it requires authentication, how it handles invalid symbols, or any data-source dependencies. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the score measures, the range, and the input. It doesn't detail the return format or error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple financial calculator.

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 schema only provides the title 'Symbol' with no description, but the tool description adds 'Ticker symbol', clarifying the expected value. This is a meaningful improvement over the schema, though it could give examples or formatting hints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Piotroski F-Score'), clearly stating the metric's range (0-9). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fundamentals or stock_quote by naming the unique scoring methodology.

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 states the tool evaluates financial strength, which implies its use case. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, lacking exclusions that would earn a 5.

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