stock_snapshot_market_value

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context (real-time, derived from last quote) but fails to disclose expected output format, whether multiple symbols are allowed in a single call, any permission requirements, or behavior for invalid symbols. For a snapshot tool with no annotations, this is minimal transparency.

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 sentence of eight words that fully states the core function. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The '[STANDARD]' prefix adds a minor label but does not detract from conciseness.

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 has no output schema, so the description should describe what the response contains. It only says 'market value derived from last quote' without specifying whether the output is a single number, includes a timestamp, or supports multiple symbols. With 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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 identifies the resource ('market value for a stock') and the scope (snapshot, real-time). It distinguishes from siblings like stock_snapshot_quote by specifying 'derived from last quote' rather than the raw quote itself. However, it lacks a direct action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', leaving the purpose slightly implicit.

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: use this when you need the current market value computed from the last quote. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like stock_snapshot_quote or stock_snapshot_trade, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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