get_social_sentiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scraping sources, classification, fallback to yFinance, and requires API setup for real data. It does not mention potential delays or failure modes, but is fairly transparent for an API tool.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Setup). It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, including the optional setup instructions and fallback note. No 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?

The tool is complex with external APIs and a fallback, but the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input parameters, return fields, setup, and fallback. An output schema exists, but the description still provides a convenient summary. Very 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'symbol' with examples (RELIANCE, TCS, INFY) and 'limit' with default and max values. This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Analyze social media sentiment for any NSE stock using Reddit + Twitter.' It specifies the action (analyze), the resource (social media sentiment for NSE stocks), and is distinct from sibling tools which focus on quotes, financials, etc.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to get social sentiment for NSE stocks) and includes a fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use the tool, which would have made it a 5.

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