get_stock_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'real-time stock price information', which implies a read operation but does not specify the exact fields returned (e.g., price, change, volume), error handling, latency, or any constraints like market hours. The lack of an output schema means the agent has no idea of the response structure, making this a considerable gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and object immediately, making it easy to parse. No filler or redundant words.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can infer it expects a single symbol and returns price info. However, it lacks details on what 'information' includes and any caveats (e.g., delayed data, currency). Without an output schema, the response shape is unknown, so the description is adequate but not complete for a robust call.

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 100%: the parameter 'symbol' is described with examples (AAPL, GOOGL, TSLA). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it just restates 'given stock symbol'. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the baseline of 3 is correct; the description neither adds nor detracts.

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 the verb ('get'), the resource ('real-time stock price information'), and the target ('a given stock symbol'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings implicitly: get_multiple_stock_prices is obviously different because the singular symbol is explicit in the parameter, and the description uses 'a given' which implies single. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast itself, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention that get_multiple_stock_prices should be used for multiple symbols, nor does it clarify when get_financial_data or other tools are more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema, which is a significant gap.

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