dfm_stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that data may be delayed and is not investment advice, and that unknown symbols fail with near-match suggestions. It implies read-only operation but does not fully disclose all behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states purpose and input, the second adds a disclaimer. Every word is justified.

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 an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral transparency. It covers input format and error handling, making it minimally 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?

The description adds significant value to the 'symbol' parameter by providing examples (EMAAR, SALIK, DEWA), stating case-insensitivity, and describing error behavior (fail with near-match suggestions). This goes beyond the schema's type and basic description.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a trimmed live quote for a DFM-listed security by ticker symbol. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dfm_index and dfm_list_securities by specifying 'trimmed live quote' but does not elaborate on what 'trimmed' means.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions 'by ticker symbol' and includes a disclaimer but does not specify when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools.

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