get_stock_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation by using 'get', and it adds 'current' to indicate real-time or latest price. However, it does not disclose whether data may be delayed, what happens on invalid tickers, or what exactly 'key market data' includes. For a simple read tool, 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 extremely concise, with one clear sentence and a simple Args section. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It properly identifies the single required parameter. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete, but it could benefit from noting that the data is a snapshot and possibly mentioning that ticker symbols are case-insensitive. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 only defines 'ticker' as a required string. The description adds meaning by explaining what a ticker is and providing concrete examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT', 'TSLA'). This helps the agent correctly format the parameter. No other parameters exist, so the description effectively compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current price and key market data for a stock.' The verb 'get' and resource 'stock price' are specific, and the word 'current' distinguishes it from historical price tools like get_price_history. The sibling tools include financial statements and filings, so this purpose is distinctly a market data snapshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. For example, it does not tell the agent to use get_stock_info for company details or get_price_history for historical data. The only guidance is the argument definition, which does not address tool selection.

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