rh_get_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the cost ($0.005 USDG/query), which is important, but it does not mention error handling for unsupported symbols, whether a wallet balance is required, or other side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but the cost suggests a transaction may occur, leaving ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the cost. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple price-query tool, the description covers the platform, asset class, examples, and cost. The existence of an output schema handles return-value documentation. However, integration details such as payment mechanics and behavior for unsupported symbols are not fully disclosed, leaving a gap for an agent to navigate.

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 provides only a string 'symbol' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description helps by listing example stock symbols (AAPL, NVDA, etc.), but it does not clarify case sensitivity or provide an exhaustive list. It adds value but does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get price for a tokenized stock on Robinhood Chain.' It clearly defines what the tool does and inherently distinguishes it from crypto quote tools by specifying 'stock.' The examples (AAPL, NVDA, etc.) further clarify the scope.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it is for tokenized stocks on Robinhood Chain, which differentiates it from sibling tools like rh_crypto_quote. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' scenarios, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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