Stock Price Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API source (Alpha Vantage) which adds some context, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality ('Get the latest stock price'). Every word 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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation, describe the return format (e.g., price as number with currency), and note any API limitations. The current description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema as 'The stock ticker symbol, e.g., AAPL, MSFT'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('latest stock price'), and specifies the data source ('using Alpha Vantage API'). It distinguishes from siblings like getCompanyOverview or getDividendHistory by focusing specifically on price data rather than company information or historical dividends. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getIntraday which might also provide price data.

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 implies usage context through 'latest stock price' and 'Alpha Vantage API', suggesting this is for current price lookups. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like getIntraday (for intraday data) or getCompanyOverview (for broader company data). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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