pricebook_by_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not reveal any further behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling for invalid symbols, or subscription validation. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 concise, stating the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by the required subscription level. The parameter documentation is included inline, which is efficient. At just three sentences, there is no fluff, though the structure could be slightly optimized by separating parameter details more clearly from the main description.

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 complexity of Level II order book data and the existence of an output schema (not visible), the description should provide more context about the data returned, such as price levels, sizes, or update frequency. The current description is minimal and does not fully capture what the tool delivers, even with the output schema available.

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 input schema provides only a parameter name and type with 0% description coverage. The description adds a brief explanation and an example ('Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL")'), which helps clarify the expected input. However, it does not elaborate on accepted formats, case sensitivity, or potential constraints, so it partially compensates but remains basic.

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 the tool retrieves Level II order book data for a given symbol. The verb 'Gets' and specific resource 'Level II order book data' make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from a sibling tool 'stock_level2_data', which may have similar functionality, slightly reducing clarity.

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 mentions the Gold subscription requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'stock_level2_data' or 'stock_quote_by_id', nor does it indicate when not to use it. This leaves the agent without sufficient context for choosing among similar tools.

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