get_gold_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the return type (pd.DataFrame) and parameter options, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or error conditions. The description 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 uses a docstring format with Args and Returns sections, which is clear but somewhat verbose for a simple tool. It could be more concise by integrating parameter descriptions into a shorter paragraph. The structure is logical but not optimally compact.

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 simplicity, the description covers core functionality. However, without an output schema, the Returns section is minimal ('pd.DataFrame') and lacks column details. The 'toon' output format is mentioned but not fully explained. Completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the date format, source options, and output_format meaning ('toon' is optimized for AI). It adds value beyond the schema's type/default info, though it could be more specific about the enum values and output structure.

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 'Get gold price from stock market', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (gold price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention gold price. However, it could be more precise about the market scope (e.g., which stock market).

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 provides parameter defaults and formats (e.g., date format YYYY-MM-DD, source defaults to 'SJC', output_format defaults to 'toon') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It offers basic usage guidance but lacks context for decision-making.

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