rh_list_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists all available stocks and mentions contracts and categories, but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or potential limitations. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich; it lacks explicit disclosure of side effects or safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence containing a clear verb and noun phrase. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action and the key content of the response. It does not explain the return format, but the presence of an output schema means that is not required. Minor omissions like authentication or rate limits are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 per the guidelines. The description adds meaning by indicating the output will include contracts and categories, which is helpful contextual information beyond the empty schema. There is no conflict with schema coverage.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('all available tokenized stocks on Robinhood Chain') along with the included data ('contracts and categories'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rh_get_stock, which presumably fetches a single stock, and rh_info, which is a general info tool.

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 clear context: use this tool to get the full list of tokenized stocks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of 'all available' implies enumeration while sibling tool names suggest specific lookups or other operations. This qualifies as clear context with no exclusions.

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