inquery-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 states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.

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 financial data queries, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., price, currency, timestamp), how current the data is, or any limitations. For a tool that likely provides time-sensitive financial information, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'symbol' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the symbol should be in (e.g., ticker symbols for Korean stocks), valid examples, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current stock price information'), and specifies the data source ('Korea Investment & Securities'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inquery-overseas-stock-price' or 'inquery-stock-info', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'inquery-overseas-stock-price' for overseas stocks or 'inquery-stock-info' for general stock information, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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