get_stock_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate real-time data, market coverage, batch capability, and flexible symbol formats, but it does not describe the return shape, error behavior, or data-source caveats. 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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives market-specific format guidance, then closes with a fallback routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 quote tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers supported markets, code formats, batch behavior, limits in the schema, and the fallback to search_stock. The only notable gap is the lack of any description of the returned quote data, which matters because there is no output schema, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema already documents the symbols array with 100% coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: exact symbol-format conventions for A-shares, HK stocks, and US tickers, plus the batch-query capability. This materially helps an agent construct valid inputs.

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 retrieves real-time stock quotes for A-shares, HK, and US markets, and supports batch queries. It names the resource (stock quotes) and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_stock tool by being the quote-retrieval step after a code is known.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use this tool versus search_stock: if the user is unsure of the stock code, search_stock should be used first. It also gives concrete code-format examples for each market, making the appropriate call pattern clear.

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