sector-rotation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (Yahoo Finance free, no API keys) and details returned metrics (1D/5D/1M/3M returns, rotation signal, ranking). Does not explicitly state read-only nature, but sufficient for a non-destructive 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?

Description is efficient: three sentences covering purpose, output details, use cases, and parameterization. No wasted words, information front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns, how to parameterize, and intended use cases. No gaps for typical agent interaction.

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 100% with one parameter (rank_by). Description adds context by listing typical timeframes (1D, 5D, 1M, 3M) and stating 'sort by any timeframe', going beyond the schema 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 provides S&P 500 sector rotation analysis with relative performance against the SPY benchmark, listing all 11 GICS sectors. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on sector rotation signals and rankings.

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?

Description explicitly states use cases: sector allocation, macro-regime interpretation, screening rotation momentum. It mentions parameterization for sorting by timeframe, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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