get_market_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the extensive data returned (categorized news, fundamentals, ratings, events, ownership, insider summary, short interest, options activity, sector context) and notes a limitation (use get_insider_trades for detailed Form 4).

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 well-structured with a clear opening and bullet points for the comprehensive view. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the main purpose is effective.

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 is remarkably thorough. It covers what the tool does, when to use each mode, parameter details, and even references a sibling tool. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, it is fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains default behavior (comprehensive defaults true if symbol provided, limit defaults differ), and clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond their schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves market intelligence for a ticker symbol or general market news, distinguishing between comprehensive and basic modes. It lists specific content categories and differentiates from sibling tool get_insider_trades.

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 explains when to use comprehensive (with symbol) vs basic (comprehensive=false) and directs users to get_insider_trades for detailed SEC filings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other news-related siblings like analyze_news_impact or get_analyst_ratings.

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