sapma_analizi_raporu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the analytical approach (Z-score measurement) and the output concept (which brokerage deviates in which stock), making the read-only analytical nature clear. It stops short of describing limitations or prerequisites, but the methodology and purpose are well conveyed.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then expanding into methodology and use case. Every sentence adds distinct value 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, how it does it (Z-score), and when to use it, making it a complete standalone definition for this comparably simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed; it focuses on the analytical result and use case, which 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+resource: 'Konsensüsten en çok sapan analist görüşlerini bul' (find analyst views deviating most from consensus), clearly stating the tool's core function. It further specifies the Z-score methodology and differentiates from the sibling tool 'konsensus_analiz' by focusing on outliers rather than the consensus itself.

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 states the intended use case: 'Kontrarian fırsat tespiti için kullanılır' (used for contrarian opportunity detection). This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the implicit contrast with consensus analysis.

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