stock_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It only describes the returned data, leaving potential behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the data included. It is concise and free of fluff, though the run-on structure with multiple commas could be slightly clearer. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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 the presence of an output schema, the return values need not be described in detail. The tool handles one parameter with an explained format, and the core functionality is clear. However, it lacks any mention of usage context, restrictions, or safety profile (since annotations are absent), leaving gaps for an agent evaluating invocation behavior.

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 schema has no description for the sole parameter `stock_ref` (coverage 0%). The description compensates by specifying the accepted formats: either a numeric id or a path of the form '/stocks/<slug>/<id>'. This adds crucial semantics beyond the raw schema, though it does not provide examples or clarify the exact syntax of the path.

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 tool as retrieving a stock overview, likely for a single stock, and enumerates the key data fields returned (price, day change, returns, scores, peer fundamentals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_screen or index_stocks by focusing on a single stock detail, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name 'detail' implies it complements screening or listing tools, but no guidance is provided about choosing it over stock_screen or sector_stocks. An agent would need to infer the use case from the name and context.

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