stock_snapshot_ohlc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, but it only mentions 'real-time current-day,' which is a temporal scope. It does not state what happens when multiple symbols are passed, whether any side effects exist, or what the return structure looks like. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the leading '[VALUE]' token is a meaningless placeholder that should be removed. Aside from that, the one-sentence structure is efficient.

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 schema provides solid parameter documentation, but there is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what data is returned. It mentions OHLC but omits details like whether volume or timestamps are included, and does not clarify that the symbol array allows multiple symbols or wildcard. Given the tool's simplicity and good schema, the description is just barely adequate.

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 all three parameters (symbol, venue, min_time) already having meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 identifies the resource (stock) and the type of data (real-time current-day OHLC), which distinguishes it from history and other snapshot tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get') and begins with a placeholder '[VALUE]', which adds noise without contributing meaning.

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 phrase 'current-day' implies this is for real-time data, contrasting with history tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No direct sibling differentiation such as 'for historical OHLC use stock_history_ohlc' is provided.

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