stocks_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a stock quote' without revealing whether the quote is real-time, delayed, or what fields are returned (e.g., price, volume). This is a significant gap for a tool that agents must invoke correctly.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it does not waste words, it sacrifices substance for brevity, making it merely adequate rather than exemplary.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'quote' entails, whether it returns current or historical data, or how it differs from stocks_prices. An agent lacks sufficient context to select it confidently among similar tools.

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 'ticker' well-described as 'Stock ticker (e.g., AAPL)'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a stock quote'), and the word 'stock' differentiates it from sibling quote tools for other asset classes (etf_quote, crypto_quote, etc.). However, it does not distinguish it from overlapping tools like stocks_prices, so it is not a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select stocks_quote over stocks_prices or other quote tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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