Get Stock Quote Tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the quote fields and market state examples, but it does not mention read-only side-effect absence, data freshness/delay, authentication needs, or behavior for invalid tickers.

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 two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the return payload summarized compactly. There is no redundancy or 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 with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and expected return data. The main gap is the lack of explicit behavioral caveats and alternative routing in the description itself, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'ticker symbol'; the schema already supplies exact-symbol guidance, examples, and the search_ticker fallback.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current stock quote for a ticker symbol.' It then itemizes quote-specific fields such as live price, previous close, day high/low, volume, and market state, which clearly differentiates it from historical, overview, and ratio siblings.

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 implies when to use it through the word 'current' and the quote-specific return fields, so an agent can infer it is not for historical or fundamental analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions; the schema's search_ticker fallback is helpful but not part of the tool description.

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