asset_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses detailed behaviors: bar finalization rules, source confirmation and exchange delays, use of finalized bars for derived metrics, output contents, and numeric precision. This is rich, non-redundant context.

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 organized with a clear input list followed by behavioral details. While longer than strictly necessary, each sentence provides useful information and the structure makes it scannable. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input semantics, defaults, timing behavior, output components, and precision. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand the response shape.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description thoroughly documents every parameter: asset format and accepted variations, timeframe enum values with default, timestamp meaning and default, response_version const, and include_indicators effect. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 returns market analysis at a requested time, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on analysis output (indicators, structure, levels) rather than raw bars or charts, though it does not explicitly name the siblings.

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 context on how the tool behaves (e.g., timestamp cutoff) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over asset_bars or asset_chart. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the listed output capabilities.

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