Get quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the TradingView-first fallback to a configured licensed provider and warns about the `freshness` field, which is the key operational caveat for a quote tool. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the most important behavioral trait is present.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: return fields, accepted formats, provider routing, and the freshness caveat. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose and there is no 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?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the return fields (price, change, volume, freshness) and the accepted input formats. It does not describe units or error cases, but the schema covers market slugs and the core call contract is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining accepted ticker formats (bare vs. qualified with exchange prefixes) and the one-or-more-instruments constraint, which enriches the generic schema text for `symbols`.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Current price, change, and volume for one or more instruments.' It clearly conveys the tool's snapshot purpose and gives ticker-format examples, though it never explicitly names or differentiates from sibling tools like tv_history or tv_indicators.

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 implies this is for current quote data and includes a useful caution to check the `freshness` field before treating a price as live. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tv_history, tv_indicators, or tv_search_symbol, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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