get_stock_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response size, authentication needs) beyond listing returned data.

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?

Two sentences, one in English and one in Vietnamese, concisely convey the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. The key features are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately lists the categories of returned data (profile, price, ratios, moat). However, it does not specify exact fields or structure, which could be improved but is sufficient for agent inference.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol', and the description does not add further context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter effectively.

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 returns company profile, latest price, key financial ratios, and moat score, with the phrase 'all in 1 call' indicating a composite view. This differentiates it from specialized sibling tools like get_financials or get_realtime_quote.

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 use for a comprehensive stock overview but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_financials for detailed financials). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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