get_stock

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is sourced from a 'daily scan', which signals freshness/staleness characteristics, plus that the response includes current screen-pass status. It stops short of stating refresh timing or caching.

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 dense sentence with the subject ('one stock') up front and the payload enumerated after the colon. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional; the description instead usefully previews them. For a read-only two-parameter getter this covers what an agent needs, with only the routing question (when to prefer a screen or market view) left open.

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% and both parameters carry examples and a pointer to list_markets, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of the market dimension or its US default), which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no bonus.

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 names a single specific resource ('one stock') and enumerates the exact payload an agent can expect (RS ratings, stage, scores, growth, group rank, setup/pattern fields, passing preset screens). That makes it clearly distinguishable in spirit from aggregate siblings like market_overview and group_rankings, though it never names or contrasts them directly. Strong but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over run_screen or market_overview, and no note that list_markets should be consulted for valid market codes. The single-stock framing implies the use case, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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