stock_level2_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden but only states the basic behavior of retrieving Level II data and the subscription requirement. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is idempotent/read-only.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no extraneous content. Highly concise.

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 single parameter, output schema existence, and simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential context: purpose and subscription requirement. It could be enhanced with a note on when Level II data differs from standard quotes, but overall it is complete.

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 has 0% description coverage (only a title). The description adds an example ('AAPL') and clarifies the parameter as a ticker symbol, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is strong.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Level II market data for a stock, specifying a specific verb (Gets), resource (Level II market data), and the required subscription (Gold). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote_by_id or price_history.

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 required' prerequisite, which is useful but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., basic quotes, price history). No explicit exclusions or context on preferable scenarios.

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