get_stock_prices_batch

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 states the batch capability and max 50 instruments, but omits any details about output format, error handling on exceeding the max, whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no unnecessary information or repetition of schema details.

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 well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., structure, adjusted prices, date range handling). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context but leaves some gaps for a batch retrieval tool.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond emphasizing 'multiple instruments (max 50),' which is already captured in the instList parameter description. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get historical stock prices for multiple instruments (max 50) in one call.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is 'historical stock prices for multiple instruments', and the scope 'max 50 in one call' distinguishes it from the likely single-instrument sibling 'get_stock_prices'.

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 makes the intended use clear: for multiple instruments in a single batch call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of 'multiple instruments' and the 'batch' name effectively signal the primary use case relative to siblings.

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