stock_quote

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time' and lists metrics but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, error behavior for invalid symbols, or return structure. As a read-only tool, it lacks any caution about response nuances or limitations.

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 primary purpose and uses a compact structure. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but adds examples, so it earns its place. Zero filler words, though it could be expanded with behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core functionality and return content (price, volume, change, key metrics). However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify the response format or field types, and there's no mention of edge cases or data source. This is adequate for a basic tool but not fully complete.

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 schema provides only 'Symbol' as a title with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning with 'Ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT)' — clarifying it's a ticker and giving concrete examples. While minimal, this fully compensates for the single parameter's schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time stock quote with price, volume, change, and key metrics.' It distinguishes from siblings like price_history (historical data) and fundamentals (deep dive), positioning itself as the real-time snapshot tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., for historical data use price_history) or conditions like needing a valid symbol. The description implies usage ('get quote') without context on selection.

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