finnhub_stock_market_data

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, but it only lists operation names. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, data frequency, timestamp formats, or whether any operations mutate data. The read-only nature is implied but never stated.

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 concise intro followed by a bullet list of operations, which is easy to scan and free of fluff. However, the intro line 'Real-time quotes, historical candles, and company profiles' is somewhat generic and overlaps with the operation list, so not every line earns its place.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters and 8 operations, the description is incomplete: it does not map parameters to operations, explain required vs optional fields per operation, or describe return values or errors. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to connect operations to inputs, which it fails to do.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters like resolution, from_timestamp, statement, and freq. It does not: no format, units, or operation-specific parameter mapping is provided. Only the operation names hint at the meaning of some parameters.

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 it provides real-time quotes, historical candles, and company profiles, and enumerates eight specific operations. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on news, technical analysis, or fundamentals, though the broad umbrella scope makes it less crisp than a single-purpose tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like finnhub_stock_fundamentals or finnhub_technical_analysis. It lists operations but does not explain which operation is appropriate for a given scenario, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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