fq_get_stock_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds that it returns 'latest trade and/or OHLCV', but it does not explain behavioral details like the effect of the 'adjusted' parameter, date range constraints, or how 'latest' interacts with 'from_date' and 'to_date', which are significant gaps.

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 sentence, making it highly concise and front-loaded with key information ('Primary price tool'). However, it uses informal phrasing ('and/or') and could be better structured to include parameter hints without sacrificing brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters and an output schema, the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to explain how to retrieve historical data versus latest, the meaning of 'frequency' and 'adjusted', or the format of tickers. The description is too sparse to be complete.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe any of the 6 parameters (tickers, latest, from_date, to_date, frequency, adjusted). The brief mention of 'latest trade and/or OHLCV' hints at the 'latest' boolean but is insufficient for correct usage. This is a critical failure.

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 retrieves latest trade and/or OHLCV data for stocks/indexes, and brands itself as the 'primary price tool', which distinguishes it from siblings like fq_get_price_history and fq_get_equity_snapshot. However, the phrase 'and/or' introduces ambiguity, and it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only calls itself the 'primary price tool', which is vague, and there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better suited for specific scenarios.

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