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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the per-call cost ($0.008 USDC) and the data source (MOEX ISS), which adds useful context. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as data freshness/delay, return format, availability limitations, or whether it only returns last price as opposed to other quote fields.

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 a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and ending with the cost. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and parameter options. It does mention 'last price' as the output and provides examples, but it fails to clarify the exact 'market' parameter values, the response structure, or any operational constraints. It is adequate for a basic call with defaults but incomplete for arbitrary symbols.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It provides real symbol examples for each asset class (SBER, GAZP, USD/EUR/CNY, IMOEX) and implies the 'market' parameter selects among shares, currency pairs, and indices. Yet it does not enumerate exact valid values for 'market', leaving the exact syntax for currency pairs or indices ambiguous.

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 provides Moscow Exchange quotes with the last price of stocks, currency pairs, and indices, and gives concrete examples like SBER and IMOEX. It identifies the resource (MOEX ISS) and the action (delivering quotes), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cbr_rates, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cbr_rates for official exchange rates, ru_page for general data, or other quote-like tools. It does not provide any exclusions, preferred contexts, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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