quote_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key side-effect boundary ('without touching the chart'), gives a concrete performance measurement (29 symbols ~270ms), and warns about the sibling's slow behavior. It does not detail output shape or error behavior, but these are partly covered by the schema's not_found note.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core differentiators (MANY symbols, ONE request, no chart touch) are front-loaded, followed by a concrete use case, a performance benchmark, and a warning about the alternative.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to prefer it, why it is fast, and what side effects it avoids. The schema handles invocation details, and the not_found behavior in the schema plus the description's focus on batch quoting give an agent enough to select and call it correctly.

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 reinforces the batch nature of the symbols parameter but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, which already documents exchange-prefixed symbols, duplicate collapsing, and not_found reporting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get live quotes for MANY symbols in ONE request'. It immediately distinguishes itself from quote_get, which is the key sibling it could be confused with, by noting it does not touch the chart.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for watchlist and universe sweeps' and warns against looping quote_get, stating that quote_get switches the chart symbol and takes ~20s each. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative.

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