get_stock_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the data source (Yahoo Finance) and gives examples but does not disclose limitations like API rate limits, latency, symbol validity behavior, or data freshness. Minimal behavioral transparency beyond core function.

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 extremely concise at two sentences plus examples, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides illustrative examples, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the function. It could be improved by briefly noting the response structure (e.g., price, change), but the output schema likely covers that. Given the tool's low complexity, completeness is high.

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 defines 'symbol' as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by providing concrete examples like '^NSEI' and 'RELIANCE.NS', which clarify the expected format. This adds significant value beyond 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 'Live equity/index quote (Yahoo Finance)' with a specific use case 'current price/level of X' and provides concrete examples like '^NSEI' and 'AAPL'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings such as 'get_mutual_fund_nav' and 'get_fx_rate' which cover different asset types.

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 specifies 'Use for 'current price/level of X'', giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the sibling list implies boundaries against similar tools for mutual funds and FX.

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