Stock quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: prices are denominated in rial, the 5-level order book and retail vs institutional counts are last-published (staleness caveat), and history rows are newest first. Missing are any rate limits or coverage caveats for unlisted/suspended symbols.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and its payload, then usage, then units and caveats, then the optional parameter — a sensible order with no filler. The opening field list is long but each item is informative about the return shape, which matters given 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so field-by-field while also stating units and sort order. It is close to complete; only the interaction with the fp_history sibling and any cap on history_days beyond the schema's 250 maximum remain unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates history_days. It does add two useful details not in the schema: the rial price unit (a property of the symbol data, not a parameter) and the newest-first ordering of returned OHLC rows. That is only marginal parameter-level value above the high-coverage schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one listed share') and enumerates the returned content: last trade, range, order book, buyers/sellers, period returns, industry. The singular 'one ... share' plus the explicit pointer to fp_stocks distinguishes it from the sibling list tool without needing the schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Use after fp_stocks or when the user names a ticker'), which routes the agent from the list tool to this one. It stops short of an explicit exclusion, though: the sibling fp_history exists and the description never says when to prefer fp_history over the history_days parameter here.

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