stock_price_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and doesn't mention the configurable data source (VCI/KBS), any rate limits, auth requirements, or the structure of the returned depth levels. This leaves an agent with unaddressed questions about how the tool behaves beyond the basic 'get'.

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 that states exactly what the tool does. Every word is purposeful, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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, the presence of an output schema, and well-described parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about the return format (though output schema covers that) and provides no usage guidance. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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%, with both 'symbol' and 'source' having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Stock ticker symbol (e.g. VNM, FPT, ACB)' and 'Data source - VCI or KBS (default: VCI)'). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('order book / price depth'), and scope ('for a stock'). It explicitly mentions 'bid/ask levels', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_history and stock_intraday that cover price history and intraday data.

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 this tool (when order book depth is needed) but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions. The phrasing 'order book / price depth' makes the use case apparent, but there is no direct guidance such as 'for historical prices, use stock_history instead.'

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