sector_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output ordering for industry funds ('today's move first') and defines scope (eleven sector funds plus industry funds), but it does not mention return formatting, whether data is live or snapshot, limitations, or auth requirements. For a read-only report, the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is less critical.

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 a single structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and compresses the long list of return periods into a readable sequence. It could be split into separate sentences, but every element earns its place and no obvious filler exists.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the report contents well: benchmark, eleven sector funds, return periods, relative return, and industry funds. It stops short of specifying units, symbols, or the exact set of industry funds, so minor ambiguity remains.

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 and an empty input schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds useful context about the fixed scope of the output, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool. Baseline 4 is suitable.

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 that the tool reports sector performance, enumerating the benchmark, the eleven S&P sector funds, multiple return periods, and industry funds. It is distinguishable from siblings like sector_breadth and market_today by this detailed content, though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'shows'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sector_breadth, market_today, or index_board. The description implies a sector-performance use case but never states invocation context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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