generate_stock_images

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: images are public URLs, expire after 24 hours, and troubleshooting for rendering failures (copy URL to browser). It also details the return structure, which compensates for the lack of output schema.

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-organized with clear sections (usage, note, parameters, returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides complete information: what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral notes, parameter details, and return format (listing four keys). The context signals (1 param, no output schema) are fully addressed.

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%, and the description's parameter section ('symbol: Exchange ticker in uppercase, e.g. NVDA, AAPL') does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's pattern, examples, and description. Therefore, baseline 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 states the tool generates chart image URLs for a stock, listing three specific chart types (price chart, IV surface, options flow heatmap). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_stock' or 'get_equity_curves' by focusing on visual outputs.

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 lists when to use the tool (user asks to see/show/visualize a chart, accompany analysis with visuals, share chart links). It does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the siblings are provided separately.

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