tickerbot_get_ticker_sectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors beyond the tool name: non-ETF tickers return is_etf=false with empty sectors, and is_etf=true with zero sectors means data isn't ingested yet. It does not cover all edge cases like invalid tickers, but the disclosed behavior is genuinely useful.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the core function, the second covers important edge-case semantics. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (sector weights, ordered heaviest first), the is_etf flag, and the distinction between non-ETFs and ETFs without ingested data. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with description "ETF symbol." The tool description reinforces this by saying "ETF's sector allocation," but adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get an ETF's sector allocation (sector weights, heaviest first)." It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like get_ticker_holdings or get_ticker_coverage by focusing on sector-level data.

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 usage context is implied through the description: use this when you need sector weights for an ETF. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_ticker_holdings for holdings or get_ticker_coverage for coverage), so clear exclusion guidance is missing.

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