get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'real-time snapshot' hints at read-only behavior, it does not explicitly declare it read-only or disclose any constraints like rate limits, pagination behavior, or that it returns only current values. There is no mention of error handling or data freshness limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers the key asset classes and parameter details. No filler words. The structure separates the main description from parameter docs, which is clear.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains both parameters and the supported scope. However, it lacks explicit mention of the read-only nature or any operational constraints (e.g., number of symbols allowed per call, rate limits). For a tool with no annotations and only two simple parameters, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does this well: 'symbols' is explained with concrete examples (e.g., '600519' or '600519,00700,AAPL') and supports multiple types; 'detail' is described as returning full fields including pledge ratio and goodwill. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 fetches a real-time market snapshot with specific fields (price, change, volume, market cap, PE/PB, dividend yield, etc.). It explicitly mentions multi-symbol support and asset classes (A-shares, HK, US, indices, ETFs, convertible bonds). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_kline (historical data) and get_minute (intraday bars).

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 usage context by saying 'real-time snapshot' and lists the asset types it supports, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_kline or get_minute. It could be clearer about avoiding this for historical data or comparison with siblings.

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