Stock quote

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful domain context: price field meanings, volume-weighted close, and Rial currency. It stops short of discussing market-session timing or stale-data caveats, but it adds enough beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds field semantics and sibling routing in a compact block. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or padding.

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 quote tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it explains the main return fields, the currency, and where to go for related data. No critical details are 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 100% and the single symbol parameter is fully described with examples in the schema. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: latest price, daily range, volume and key facts for one TSE instrument. It also names sibling tools for adjacent tasks, so an agent can distinguish this quote lookup from order-book and historical-data tools.

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 explicitly routes the agent to ts_order_book for bids/asks and ts_price_history for earlier days. It does not mention ts_market_movers or ts_search_symbols, leaving some sibling selection implicit, but the main alternatives are clear.

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