inquery-stock-info

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 states the tool retrieves 'daily stock price information,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a financial data tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and expected outputs, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'symbol' represents, date formats for 'start_date' and 'end_date', or valid ranges). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, making parameter understanding inadequate.

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 action ('Get daily stock price information') and the resource ('from Korea Investment & Securities'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inquery-stock-price' or 'inquery-stock-history', which likely serve similar purposes, preventing a perfect score.

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 alternatives, such as how it differs from 'inquery-stock-price' or 'inquery-stock-history' among the sibling tools. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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