get_stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'live' and specific output fields, but lacks details on data source, latency, rate limits, authentication, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations (none provided), but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second gives a concrete example. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential information: what data is returned. It does not detail return structure or error scenarios, but given no output schema, it is adequately complete. A minor gap is not specifying the format of the returned data.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides an example ('RELIANCE') suggesting the symbol is a stock ticker, but does not explain valid formats, case sensitivity, or if additional prefixes are needed. Adds partial meaning but not comprehensive.

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 it returns a live stock quote from NSE, listing specific fields: price, volume, day high/low, 52-week range, market cap. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'stock quote', and the example ('RELIANCE') reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_history (historical) and get_stock_news (news).

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?

While the description implies use for current real-time data, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide exclusions. The example provides context, but no direct comparison or guidance on alternatives like get_stock_history for historical data.

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