extract_finance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: no API key is required, Stooq is the source, and only successful observations produce fresh context. The 'freshcontext' phrasing is awkward, but it still discloses auth and success/failure behavior beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, followed by ticker limits and behavior. The 'freshcontext' typo and slightly awkward 'timestamped freshcontext' phrasing prevent a perfect score, but there is little wasted text.

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 read-only quote tool with no output schema, it covers source, fields, ticker limit, and success-only behavior. Still, it does not explain max_length semantics, the return shape, or behavior on invalid or mixed tickers, leaving an agent with meaningful gaps.

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 description adds meaning to the url parameter by specifying 'up to 5 comma-separated tickers,' which is not fully captured in the schema. However, max_length is left unexplained in both the schema and the description, and with 50% schema coverage this is a notable gap.

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 identifies a specific resource — stock quote data via Stooq — and enumerates the returned fields (close, open, high, low, volume, timestamp, source). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not differentiate from sibling extract_finance_landscape, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when keyless stock quotes from Stooq are needed, with up to 5 comma-separated tickers. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools such as extract_finance_landscape or extract_company_landscape.

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