equity-brief

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

No annotations provided. The description details the data sources, parallel gathering, AI model used (GPT-4o-mini), and output structure. It does not disclose error handling or reliability disclaimers, but is otherwise transparent.

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 and informative, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, explaining data layers, AI use, output, and cost benefits.

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 complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters, data sources, AI process, and output structure. Missing error conditions and limitations (e.g., ticker validation).

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context (case-insensitive ticker, style defaults) but does not significantly extend 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 purpose: an AI-synthesized equity brief for US stocks that gathers five signal layers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces a 4-call agent chain and is cheaper.

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 explicitly recommends this tool over calling separate tools for technicals, price, insider trades, and options snapshot. It mentions cost savings, but does not specify when not to use it or other edge cases.

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