yahoo_stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (a detailed list of metrics), but does not mention data freshness, error behavior, rate limits, or any potential side effects. It provides moderate transparency by listing expected outputs.

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 concise—exactly two sentences—with the main purpose and return values front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks only minor details like error handling or data source specificity, but the overall context is adequate.

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 100% for the single symbol parameter, including examples. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('current stock quote information from Yahoo Finance') and enumerates the key output fields (current price, day range, 52-week range, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_stock_history and yahoo_market_data by focusing on current quote data.

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 states 'Use this for getting the latest stock price and key metrics,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the 'current' vs. 'history' contrast imply the appropriate context.

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