get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds that it requires a connected broker, must hit the broker's live feed, and is the 'right-now' source of truth. Minor gap: no mention of real-time latency or potential unavailability if broker disconnected.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler. Front-loaded behavior, then use-case examples, then exclusions/alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a low-complexity tool with 2 params and no output schema. It covers the data source, the when-to-use and the alternatives. Only small gap is return-shape expectations (e.g., does it return raw or normalized quote?), but this is a simple quote tool and annotations cover safety.

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 0%, but the description explains 'broker' and 'symbol' context by indicating it queries a connected broker for a symbol. It doesn't specify valid broker identifiers or symbol formats, but it does add enough context that the agent understands what these parameters represent.

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 specific verb+resource ('get_quote' for right-now bid/ask/last from a connected broker) and explicitly contrasts it with historical bar tools, making it distinguishable from siblings. It also gives concrete example phrases like 'MNQ price right now'.

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 states when to use it ('live quote', 'right-now bid/ask/last'), and explicitly says not to use web search scraping of CME/Yahoo. It also points to data/backtest tools for historical OHLCV bars, giving clear routing guidance.

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