stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the quote is 'real-time' and covers three markets, but does not disclose anything about data source, market-hours behavior, rate limits, or what happens for invalid symbols. The 'real-time' claim adds some behavior, but the overall disclosure is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and market scope. It does not attempt to restate schema details, keeping it appropriately 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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits any guidance about when to pick this tool over the closely related stock_quote_batch. It also lacks any usage conditions or caveats. For a tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap despite the simple shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the symbol format and examples are already in the input schema. No deduction or bonus is warranted.

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 ('Get') and resource ('real-time stock quote'), and scopes it to A-share, HK, and US stocks. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling stock_quote_batch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus stock_quote_batch, kline, or market_status. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is for single quotes only or whether batch should be preferred for multiple symbols. The context is implied at best.

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