stock_prices

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: the max of 2000 tickers, the fact that even at that size it is 'one upstream request', the exchange-scoped lookup behavior, and the not_found list in the response for unrecognized tickers. These are exactly the kind of behaviors an agent needs to know that the annotations do not cover.

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 about 60 words of prose split into an intro sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds critical information—no redundancy, no fluff. The most important constraint (format) appears first, with the example and edge cases (not_found) following naturally. It is dense but efficient.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary usage context: the exact string format, length limits, the behavior when a ticker is not recognized, and the full set of returned fields (ticker, symbol, description, exchange, price, open, high, low, currency, change_percent). There is no external output schema to fall back on, yet nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only provides 'tickers' with type string and no description or enum, i.e., 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact format ('EXCHANGE:SYMBOL'), giving an example ('NASDAQ:NVDA, NASDAQ:TSLA, KRX:005930'), the comma separator, the 2000 max, the requirement for an exchange prefix, and the return envelope structure. This transforms a previously meaningless parameter into a completely specified one.

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: 'Current price + daily % change for specific stock symbols.' It specifies the resource (stock symbols), the action (retrieve current price and change), and the scope (specific symbols, not indices or sectors). This distinguishes it from the many scanner and analysis tools in the sibling list.

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 usage through detailed formatting instructions ('comma-separated EXCHANGE:SYMBOL list') and notes the exchange prefix is required. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus a sibling like 'yahoo_price' or 'stock_screener', nor does it exclude alternatives. The context is clear, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions.

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