get_stock_latest_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. However, the description only restates the tool's basic function and adds no behavioral context such as data delay, feed selection, default behavior, or limitations. It does not even mention that multiple symbols are supported beyond the input schema.

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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded. Every word adds meaning, and there is no wasted text or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It clearly identifies the resource and action, but it lacks guidance on usage context versus sibling tools and does not disclose behavioral details like feed defaults, despite those being in the schema. The presence of the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for feed, symbols, and currency, so the description adds little value here. It does reinforce that multiple symbols can be supplied ('one or more stocks'), which is marginally helpful, but this is already conveyed by the schema's 'comma-separated list' 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest minute bar for one or more stocks.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stock_bars, get_stock_quotes, and get_stock_trades by focusing on the latest minute bar rather than historical bars or other data types.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that get_stock_bars should be used for historical bar data, or that get_stock_latest_quote/trade are for quotes/trades. The 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.