Get Price Shockers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not define what threshold makes a movement 'significant,' whether results are real-time or delayed, how many stocks are returned, or whether it requires a live market session. 'Get' implies a read, but that is the only behavioral inference available.

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 with no filler or redundancy, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool. It is arguably too terse, but every word earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return structure need not be explained, and the absence of parameters keeps the surface small. Still, for a tool whose value hinges on the undefined word 'significant' and on how it differs from get_trending_stocks, the description leaves meaningful ambiguity that a well-formed definition would resolve.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 and resource ('Get stocks') and narrows the subset to those with 'significant intraday price/volume movements,' which is more informative than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling get_trending_stocks, which plausibly returns a similar set of movement-driven stocks, leaving the boundary between the two unclear.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_trending_stocks, get_stock_forecasts, or get_historical_data, and no mention of prerequisites or context such as market hours. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'intraday price/volume movements.'

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