intl-stock-price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Yahoo Finance), that no API key is needed, that data is live during market hours, and the cost per call ($0.020). This is sufficient behavioral context for a simple read tool. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but that is acceptable for a tool of this simplicity.

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 two sentences plus a cost line. It front-loads the purpose, then provides syntax details, then source and cost information. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward function, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, how to call it, data source, and cost. It does not discuss return format or error states, but for a price query tool, this is acceptable. Minor omission: it could mention data delay, but not critical.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of exchange-suffixed tickers (MC.PA, SAP.DE, AZN.L) and explaining the market shorthand system with key-value pairs (e.g., 'market=fr, ticker=MC'). This helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema.

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 it returns current price and intraday metrics for international equities, listing specific markets (EU, UK, Switzerland, Japan, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'us-stock-price' (US only) and 'global-equity-indices' (indices) by focusing on individual international stocks.

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 explicit usage guidance with examples of valid tickers (e.g., MC.PA, SAP.DE) and the market shorthand system. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like US stock tools. The context from sibling tool names helps imply differentiation.

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