stock_prices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful transparency by detailing the return envelope structure (fields like price, open, high, low, change_percent) and the not_found list behavior. It also mentions the single upstream request at full size, which is useful operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence provides necessary information: the core purpose, param format, constraints, and return shape. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents the return envelope (fields listed) and error/edge-case behavior (not_found list). It also covers the key usage constraints, making it complete for a simple read-only data retrieval tool with strong annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying the parameter format (comma-separated EXCHANGE:SYMBOL), providing a concrete example ('NASDAQ:NVDA, NASDAQ:TSLA, KRX:005930'), and noting the max length (2000). It also explains why the exchange prefix is necessary.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Current price + daily % change for specific stock symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('Current price') and identifies the resource ('specific stock symbols'), distinguishing it from broader market overview tools like market_snapshot or egx_market_overview.

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 clear usage context: it requires a specific EXCHANGE:SYMBOL format, mentions the maximum of 2000 tickers, and explains that the exchange prefix is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to use it.

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