tickerbot_get_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly explains that the tool returns every column on the schema and gives concrete examples (rsi_14, above_sma_50, pe_ratio). It also details the asof behavior: date-only gives close of day, timestamp gives moment-in-time row. This is valuable context beyond the bare parameter descriptions, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a single clarifying detail about asof. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is concise yet comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the returned row contains by referencing the full schema and listing examples. It also covers the asof edge case. The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects), and the description gives enough context for an agent to select and correctly invoke it. Minor omissions like not-found behavior are acceptable for a getter.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example timestamp (2026-07-20T15:30:00Z) and rephrases the asof semantics, but does not materially extend what the schema already provides. The ticker parameter semantics (case-insensitive, crypto prefix) are fully covered in the schema, not in the 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full current row for one ticker', and further clarifies scope by listing column categories (price, indicators, boolean flags, fundamentals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker_history or get_ticker_bars, which are not point-in-time row snapshots.

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 usage for obtaining a complete row at current or historical moment, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that get_ticker_history or get_series would be used for multi-row time series. While the context is clear, there are no explicit exclusions or alternates.

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