get_bist_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a reasonably good job: it discloses the Yahoo Finance data source and the 15-minute delay, which are material behavioral traits. It also clarifies that only the stock code should be provided. It does not describe error behavior or output structure, but the core behavioral context is covered.

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 three sentences, with the purpose first, the data-delay detail second, and the input format third. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, simple look-up tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the BIST scope, source, delay, and symbol format. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from a bit more detail on what 'piyasa verileri' includes or the exact return shape, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly, including examples and the instruction not to append .IS, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds a similar example set but no meaningfully new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns Borsa İstanbul (BIST) stock prices, changes, and market data, with a specific verb and resource. It is clearly scoped to BIST stocks, which separates it from exchange-rate, crypto, and global-stock siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies the tool is for BIST stocks and gives example symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_global_stock_price or get_exchange_rate. Usage context is present, but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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