get_us_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond this: data source (yfinance), up to 15-minute delay, and market status (regular/pre/post). This helps the agent set expectations on freshness and scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides examples, return fields, and the parameter explanation in a logical order. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed, though the bilingual repetition slightly reduces elegance.

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?

With an output schema present, the description still enumerates the return fields and notes the data delay, covering everything an agent needs to decide and call. It is complete for a single-parameter, read-only tool; the only minor omission is handling of invalid tickers, which is not critical.

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 only parameter, ticker, is explained with concrete examples including a dotted symbol (BRK.B), which the schema alone (just type: string) does not convey. This adds meaning about format and acceptable values. Since there is only one param and no schema description, the description fully compensates.

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 it provides a US stock price snapshot via yfinance, listing the exact fields returned (current price, change, OHLC, volume, 52-week range, beta, market cap, market status) and giving example queries. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling price tools like get_us_multi_price or get_us_chart, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 gives example queries ('AAPL price', 'Tesla 현재가') and says these are the use cases, implying when to invoke the tool. However, it never mentions alternatives or when not to use it, such as for multi-stock comparisons or historical charts, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from sibling names.

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