sync_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the side effect of syncing into a local MySQL database and defines the scope of each mode, but it does not disclose whether the sync overwrites existing data, whether it is idempotent, or any performance/rate-limit considerations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the mode semantics are compactly conveyed in a single clause. Every word earns its place.

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 operation is simple and the core behavior is clear, but with no output schema and no annotations, there is no mention of return values, status reporting, or failure behavior. It is minimally viable for a 3-parameter tool but leaves some practical details unspecified.

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 67%, so the schema already handles 'symbol' and 'intraday'. The description adds genuinely useful semantics for the 'mode' parameter by defining 'full' and 'incremental', which the schema's enum alone does not explain. This goes beyond the baseline for parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sync'), a resource ('a stock'), and a destination ('local MySQL database'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explains the two modes ('full' vs 'incremental') in concrete terms, which further distinguishes the operation from the read-only sibling tools like get_bars.

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 explains the meaning of 'full' and 'incremental' but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_bars or sync_sectors. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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