Get quote with technicals

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds operational context: 'can occasionally time out on cold cache — retry once if so'. This discloses failure modes and retry behavior beyond the annotations, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core capability, then use case, then performance caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, moving averages) so the agent can infer response shape. It covers alternatives, performance, and use case; complete for a simple single-ticker quote tool.

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 has 50% description coverage (timezone described, ticker not). Description only adds 'one ticker' constraint but does not explain ticker format or timezone semantics. It fails to compensate for the undocumented ticker parameter.

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?

Description states 'Quote plus computed technical indicators for one ticker' and enumerates RSI(14), MACD, Bollinger Bands, and moving-average context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stoquant_get_quote, giving a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need momentum/overbought-oversold context, not just price' and warns 'Heavier than stoquant_get_quote', directly comparing with an alternative and setting usage expectations. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named sibling.

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