get_tick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether this is a snapshot or streaming value, whether it requires an active market session, or how stale the quote may be. The only implicit signal is that it is a read-style lookup, which is not made explicit.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key resource ('bid and ask price') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description at least names the two returned fields (bid and ask), which partially covers return semantics. However, it omits timestamp/precision, symbol format, and session prerequisites, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding whether the result is fresh enough to act on.

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 0% — the single 'symbol' parameter has no description in the schema — so the description must compensate and largely does not. It confirms only that a symbol is required, without specifying the expected format (ticker, market-qualified name, etc.) or whether it must match search_symbols output.

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 resource and verb-equivalent: 'Latest bid and ask price for a symbol.' This is far more precise than a bare 'get tick' and clearly distinguishes it from historical tools like get_candles. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings such as get_symbol_info or get_terminal_info, which is why it is not a 5.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives like get_candles or get_symbol_info, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a subscribed symbol or market connection). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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