report_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It describes the return data in detail (bullish score, PMCC viability, etc.), which clarifies that this is an analysis/report tool. However, it does not mention whether any state changes occur, whether it places orders, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is not misleading but leaves behavioral edges unclear.

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 brief and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, follows with a bulleted-like list of returned data (though not literally bullets), and ends with parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more polished by using bullet points, but it is concise and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's broad scope and lack of output schema, the description lists the key return components, which gives a good sense of what to expect. However, it does not mention input validation, error conditions, or any prerequisites (e.g., data availability). The sibling set is large, and while the description clearly positions this as the comprehensive report, it does not explicitly link to alternative tools. Overall, the description is adequate for a 1-parameter tool but could be more complete.

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 0% in the input schema, so the description must document parameters. It does so effectively: 'symbol: Ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT)' provides both meaning and an example. For a single-parameter tool, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 generates comprehensive stock analysis data including trend, PMCC, and fundamental analysis. It lists specific output components (bullish score, PMCC viability, fundamentals, Piotroski F-Score, spread strategies, overall recommendation), which gives a precise sense of the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like fundamentals or piotroski_score that cover single aspects.

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 this is a one-stop report tool ('Generate comprehensive stock analysis data'), suggesting use when a broad overview is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the specialized sibling tools (e.g., use fundamentals for just fundamentals) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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