Get current prices

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world characteristics, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a fixed provider fallback order (Tiingo, Polygon, Alpha Vantage), that every failure is reported rather than aborting, and that 'no key', 'bad ticker' and 'rate limited' remain distinguishable. It doesn't state authentication prerequisites or latency/rate-limit thresholds for the caller, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is returned and then the provider/failure behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one parameter, no output schema and no pagination surface, the description fully covers the return shape (price plus as-of date plus provider) and the partial-failure semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results.

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 reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single parameter, yet it only says 'a list of tickers'. It omits the US-listing constraint, case-insensitivity, the 1-100 item bounds and the 10-character ticker limit that the schema enforces.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: current prices for a list of tickers. An agent can distinguish it from analytical siblings like analyze_ticker or macro_context, though the description never explicitly names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is implied ('current prices for a list of tickers') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to a sibling such as analyze_ticker for deeper analysis. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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