stock_quote

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch a stock quote' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it's real-time or delayed, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Fetch a stock quote', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity (financial data fetching with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, or output, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a context with many similar siblings.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'symbol' and 'datatype' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'symbol' represents (e.g., ticker format), what 'datatype' does, or provide examples. With 2 parameters and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 'Fetch a stock quote' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (stock quote), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what a 'stock quote' entails (e.g., price, volume, timestamp) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_series_daily' or 'realtime_bulk_quotes', which might offer similar data. This lack of specificity prevents a higher score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'time_series_daily', 'realtime_bulk_quotes', 'company_overview'), the description doesn't specify if this is for real-time quotes, historical data, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons, leaving usage unclear.

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