generate_stock_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that images are public URLs that expire after 24 hours and addresses potential rendering issues by suggesting to copy the URL. This is comprehensive for a simple image generation tool.

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 well-structured with a purpose line, usage guidelines, a note about URLs, and parameter/returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a detailed returns section with keys and types, explaining each URL and the expiry timestamp. The tool has only one parameter, and the description covers both input and output comprehensively.

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 0% because the input schema only has a 'symbol' parameter with type and title but no description. The description adds a clear explanation: 'Exchange ticker in uppercase, e.g. NVDA, AAPL.' This adds value beyond the schema.

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 generates chart image URLs for a stock, listing three specific chart types. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are focused on analysis, research reports, or predictions by emphasizing visualization.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a user asks to 'see', 'show', or 'visualize' a chart, to accompany written analysis, or to share chart links. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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