quote_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that a non-blank symbol causes a temporary chart switch, serializes concurrent calls, and restores the original chart. This is valuable beyond what the schema explains. It does not cover all possible side effects (e.g., errors, rate limits), but the key structural behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences: first states the purpose, second packs the critical side effects. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what data is actually returned (e.g., bid, ask, volume). Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, the description should provide some indication of the response structure. The side effects are well-documented, but the return value is left ambiguous, making the description slightly incomplete.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage of the 'symbol' parameter, including the blank-means-current-chart behavior. The description adds one extra detail not in the schema—serialization of concurrent calls—which is useful. However, most of the description's parameter-related content is redundant with the schema, so it only marginally exceeds the baseline.

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 'Get quote data' with a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose evident. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note about temporary chart switching, which differentiates it from generic data tools. However, 'quote data' is somewhat broad and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like symbol_info, so it's not a perfect 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The behavioral note about symbol changes is useful but does not address selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage context solely from the phrase 'Get quote data'.

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