stocks_get_current_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a simple read operation. It does not clarify whether the price is real-time or delayed, what market/session it covers, or any potential side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with many close siblings.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose in the most concise way possible, earning it full marks for conciseness.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the large number of sibling tools for similar price data, the description lacks the contextual differentiation and edge-case information that would make it fully complete for an agent deciding which tool to call.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'symbol' parameter, and the description only says 'for a stock,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the tool name. It does not explain the expected symbol format (e.g., 'AAPL' vs. exchange suffixes) or provide any additional parameter context.

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 current market price for a stock.' clearly states the verb (get), resource (stock), and outcome (current market price). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stocks_get_last_quote or stocks_get_last_trade, which also provide price data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative price-related tools among the many siblings. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the AI agent without decision support.

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