stock_price_depth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what it returns (bid/ask levels) but does not disclose whether this is a snapshot vs. streaming, whether it includes depth aggregation, real-time vs. delayed data, or rate limits. The output schema presumably clarifies structure. The description adds modest value but leaves behavioral traits such as data freshness and snap semantics unstated.

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 that conveys the core purpose with useful parenthetical detail (bid/ask levels). No fluff or redundancy. It could have included a note on when to use it over siblings, but as-is it is tight and front-loaded.

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 only 2 params with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, so the structural baseline aids completeness. However, the description doesn't mention important contextual aspects like whether this data is real-time or delayed, how many levels are returned, or whether fallback sources exist. For a market-data tool, freshness semantics matter and are unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (symbol and source) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the source parameter's meaning is somewhat clear from schema defaults but no extra guidance is offered in the description.

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 order book / price depth (bid/ask levels) for a stock' clearly states the verb (get), resource (order book/price depth with bid/ask levels), and scope (per stock). It differentiates fairly well from siblings like stock_history and stock_intraday which deal with price data over time, while this covers current depth levels. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings but the resource is specific enough.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions in the description. The implied usage is clear (when you need bid/ask depth levels for a stock), but no alternatives are mentioned and no context on market hours, liquidity constraints, or distinction from tick/level data is given. It's adequate but not proactive.

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