get_taiwan_stock_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the unified MCPToolResponse format, enumerates all StockPriceData fields, and clearly states error conditions with likely causes. It does not mention potential data latency or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool the behavioral coverage is strong.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by symbol formats, examples, args, returns, and errors. It is somewhat long but every section contributes useful information, so no part feels wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers input formatting, return structure with field names, and possible error causes. Nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares symbol as a string. The description fully compensates: it defines symbol as a 4-6 digit code with optional letters or a full/partial company name, gives concrete examples including an ETF, and explains partial-name matching. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: '取得台灣股票即時價格資訊' (get Taiwan stock real-time price info). It further clarifies accepted input types (codes vs. names) with examples, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_real_time_trading_stats or get_stock_daily_trading.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of querying by code or company name and the examples provided, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced, and no exclusions or conditions are given.

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