trading_price_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention any limitations (e.g., symbol count, data freshness, required auth) or what happens with invalid symbols. The word 'get' implies read-only, but no additional behavioral context is added.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter 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 (2 params, no nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks any contextual guidance on typical usage scenarios or edge cases, which could be improved given the suite of sibling tools. The high schema coverage partially compensates for the brevity.

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 'source' and 'symbols' already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get real-time price board for multiple stocks' uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource (real-time price board for multiple stocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_history, stock_intraday, and stock_price_depth by emphasizing 'real-time' and 'multiple stocks'.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like stock_history or stock_intraday. Usage context is only implied by 'real-time' and 'multiple stocks', but no explicit direction is given.

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