Search stocks and ETFs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: 'The first call builds a local index and may take a few seconds.' This is valuable for agent planning. However, it does not mention any read-only nature, permissions, or caching behavior. Still, it is fairly transparent for a search tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return info, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return format, and a behavioral note. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, return content (tickers with exchange and sector), and initial latency. However, without an output schema, it is incomplete: it does not specify the full result structure (e.g., if ticker symbol and company name are returned, or if there are additional fields like price). Also, no mention of pagination despite a limit parameter. Adequate but with gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema: it mentions query is 'Ticker symbol or (partial) company name' which repeats the schema description. No additional meaning is provided for 'limit' or 'asset_type' beyond defaults and ranges.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Look up US stocks or ETFs by ticker symbol or company name. Returns matching tickers with their exchange and sector.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('US stocks or ETFs'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_stock_details' (detailed info) and 'screen_stocks' (filtering).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools like 'screen_stocks' for more advanced filtering. Usage is only implied from the purpose.

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