Get Stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: codes are exchange short symbols, examples are provided, and matching is case-insensitive. It does not mention edge cases like invalid codes or data freshness, but for a simple lookup tool these are minor.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by necessary code-format guidance and a sibling routing tip. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers input semantics, examples, and when to use the sibling tool. It could briefly mention behavior for unknown codes, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and existing output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it defines what 'codes' means, gives concrete examples, and clarifies case-insensitivity, which is essential for correct invocation. This far exceeds the bare schema definition.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), resource ('current prices'), and scope ('specific DSE trading codes'). It also differentiates from siblings by naming search_stock as the tool for partial-name lookups, making the purpose 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 gives clear when-to-use context: when you have specific DSE trading codes. It explicitly names an alternative and the condition for using it: 'Use search_stock if you only know part of a name.' This provides actionable routing without ambiguity.

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