get_stock_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the data obtained (price, change, volume) but omits critical details such as data freshness (real-time vs delayed), error handling for invalid symbols, rate limits, or whether the data is from a live or simulated source. This is insufficient for reliable agent decision-making.

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 sentence that front-loads the key outputs. Every word is informative; no fluff or repetition. It achieves maximum conciseness while conveying essential functionality.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output), and the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool returns. However, it lacks information about data sources or freshness, which slightly reduces completeness. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward stock quote lookup.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Stock ticker symbol, e.g. NVDA'. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3. No extra value provided.

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' and the resource 'latest price, daily change %, and trading volume for a stock'. It distinguishes from sibling tools: compute_rsi (RSI indicator), get_historical_prices (historical data), and generate_research_report (research). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this is for current data vs historical data (get_historical_prices) or technical analysis (compute_rsi). The agent must infer usage from the tool names alone.

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