openbb_hisse_analiz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data sources (OpenBB, yfinance) and the list of outputs, but does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness/caching behavior, what happens if the symbol is invalid or delisted, or whether the tool performs network calls that might be slow. It also does not state any side effects (none expected for a read-only tool, but that is not explicitly confirmed).

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 concise, with a clear lead sentence followed by a bullet-like list of outputs. It avoids redundancy with the schema. The only minor issue is that it mixes Turkish and English terms (e.g., 'Fiyat/Kazanç (F/K)') but that is not a structural problem. It earns a 4 due to good front-loading and no wasted words.

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 there is an output schema and only one fully documented parameter, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, data coverage limitations (e.g., global stocks may use yfinance, BIST via OpenBB), and whether the output schema includes all listed metrics. The tool appears to be a straightforward data retrieval, but the description could add a note about the data sources' reliability or the meaning of the metrics. This is a minimal viable description but not comprehensive.

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 single parameter 'sembol' is fully described in the input schema with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of metrics like 'F/K, PD/DD' provides additional context but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already gives for the parameter. The tool name itself is in Turkish, and the description is in Turkish, which is aligned. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is already strong.

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 retrieves fundamental analysis data for BIST and global stocks via OpenBB and yfinance, listing specific metrics (F/K, PD/DD, dividend yield, 52-week range, analyst target prices). It names the resource and verbs ('çek', 'raporlar') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openbb_makro_gostergeler' or 'konsensus_analiz', though the specific metrics and stock scope provide implicit distinction.

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 stock fundamental analysis, and the schema example ('THYAO, GARAN, EREGL, AAPL, NVDA') indicates both BIST and global stocks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'konsensus_analiz' (which also deals with analyst targets) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for basic selection.

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