analyze_covered_warrant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that calculations are objective, based on standard financial formulas, and that no buy/sell recommendation is given. It does not cover potential errors or data assumptions, but the core behavioral limits are transparent.

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 substantive paragraph with no filler. The first sentence efficiently lists the output metrics, and the second adds an important caveat. It is longer than some descriptions, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to set expectations about no buy/sell conclusions.

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 and no annotations, the description lists all key output metrics and explains the tool's objective nature. It connects to the sibling list tool via the parameter example. It lacks details on calculation formulas or data freshness, but for the described purpose it is sufficiently complete.

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 a clear description for cwSymbol with an example and source ('lấy từ list_covered_warrants'), covering 100% of the parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond context already present in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 analyzes one specific covered warrant in detail, listing the exact metrics it computes (current price, breakeven, premium, moneyness, leverage, liquidity). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_ohlc or list_covered_warrants, as it focuses on warrant-specific financial calculations.

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 provides strong context for when to use the tool: when a user needs detailed objective metrics for a specific covered warrant. It explicitly notes that the tool does not conclude whether to buy, setting expectations about its scope. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it compared with sibling tools, so it misses the top tier.

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