Latest Stock Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds context about what is returned (latest price, 52-week range) and the US-listed scope, but it does not disclose data freshness, delays, or any additional behavioral nuance. This is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key deliverable and adds the relevant scope. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple two-parameter schema, full schema coverage, rich read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing for this task.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both ticker and include_history. The description does not need to repeat parameter details and does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 names a concrete deliverable — a latest price snapshot and 52-week range — and scopes it to US-listed stocks. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_fundamentals, get_statement, or get_comps. The resource and intent are unambiguous.

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 makes the context clear: use this for a current price snapshot and 52-week range. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the right scenario without much risk of confusion.

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