get_stock_monthly_average

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it documents the MCPToolResponse wrapper, nested data fields, and failure reasons. It still doesn't mention data freshness, delivery window, or authentication expectations, but for a read-only data query it is fairly transparent.

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 text is well-organized with sections (purpose, examples, args, returns, raises) and front-loaded. It is a bit repetitive in the opening sentences and longer than necessary in the return list, but the detail is useful since there is no output schema.

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?

For a one-parameter query with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: input semantics, usage examples, full return structure, nested fields, and likely error causes are all present. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the lone parameter. It defines symbol as 股票代碼 and gives real examples ('2330', '0050'), fully compensating for the bare schema.

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 it retrieves/calculates monthly average transaction prices for a stock, which is a specific verb+resource. It is implicitly distinct from monthly trading-volume siblings by focusing on average price, but it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative sibling.

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?

It gives explicit use contexts (trend observation, technical analysis, regular-amount investment performance) and a concrete invocation example. It lacks 'when not to use' or explicit alternative routing, so it does not reach 5.

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