get_global_stock_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool returns real-time/current price and market data, and gives symbol format hints. However, it does not mention limitations such as potential data delays, error behavior for invalid symbols, or any other caveats, leaving the transparency somewhat shallow.

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 stating the core purpose, followed by an example list. It is concise and scannable; the examples add valuable context without excessive verbosity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the data returned and provides symbol examples. Yet it does not indicate response structure, potential errors, or rate limits, so an agent may lack full clarity on how to interpret the result.

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% because the input schema already describes the symbol parameter with examples. The tool description adds a few extra examples (SHEL.L, ^IXIC) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and clearly states the resource: current price and market data for global stocks, indices, and ETFs. The examples (AAPL, ^GSPC, etc.) and explicit mention of worldwide coverage differentiate it from sibling tools like get_bist_price or get_crypto_price.

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 when to use the tool (for global stocks/indices/ETFs) through its wording and examples, but it never explicitly mentions alternatives or when not to use it. There is no 'use X instead of Y' guidance, so it relies on the agent to infer from sibling names.

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