get_stock_data_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is included, but does not disclose return format, default behavior (e.g., whether all categories are included by default), or any side effects. It is adequate for a read-only 'get' tool but not rich in caveats or context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and scope. Every phrase earns its place ('comprehensive stock data' plus three specific categories) with zero redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (four parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns by listing the three data categories. It could be more complete by noting behavior when include flags are missing, but the schema already covers parameters. Overall, enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond listing categories already covered by the schema (financials, ratings, calendar). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('comprehensive stock data') plus the included categories (financials, analyst ratings, calendar events). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_historical_data_v2 and get_options_chain_v2, which focus on price history and options chains respectively.

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 phrase 'comprehensive stock data' implies this is the go-to tool for financials, ratings, and calendar info, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context to the reader's inference from sibling names.

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