stock_intraday

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, whether data streams live updates or is a snapshot, rate limits, or whether the source parameter (VCI vs KBS) yields different data coverage. For a real-time/intraday data tool, these behaviors matter significantly. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'today's data'.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential purpose. Could arguably add a bit more usage context without becoming bloated, but as written it's lean and clear.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity level with an output schema and 3 documented parameters. The description covers the basic purpose but misses useful context: what the source parameter choices mean, typical data fields returned, or how intraday data differs in granularity/timing from stock_history. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented (symbol, source, page_size). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The source parameter's semantics (what VCI vs KBS means for data quality or coverage) are not explained anywhere, but baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Get intraday (today's) trading data for a stock' clearly states the verb (get), resource (intraday/today's trading data), and scope (for a single stock via symbol). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_history (which implies historical data) and trading_price_board, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 this is for today's data as opposed to historical, which loosely differentiates from stock_history. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of market-hours considerations, and doesn't clarify how this differs from trading_price_board or stock_price_depth.

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