Get one HoodGrow token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fails for unknown symbols, mentions the cost structure ($0.05 via x402 or free with API key), and lists the specific data returned. No contradictions.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and data scope, the second provides cost and failure behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (live price, supply, DeFi depth, corporate actions), how much it costs, and a key edge case (unknown symbol). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's description already explains the symbol parameter (case-insensitive, example NVDA). The tool description repeats the example but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('one Robinhood Chain stock token'), and matching criteria ('by symbol'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_catalog by noting it's cheaper for a single spot check, and includes specific data yields (live price, supply, DeFi depth, corporate actions).

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 explicitly says this is for a 'single spot check' and cheaper than get_catalog, which gives when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly compare to get_corporate_actions, but the coverage of pending/recent corporate actions implies it substitutes for some of that tool's use, so an explicit exclusion would improve it.

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