fmp_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the 'short' parameter's effect (returning only price/volume), but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature. It adds some transparency about the response shape but is otherwise minimal for a tool that presumably performs a read operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a short arg list. Every word serves a purpose normalization coverage is high, no fluff. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by param explanations.

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 a simple query with two params, both explained. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return format may be self-documenting. However, without annotations and no mention of what fields a 'full quote' includes, the description leaves some uncertainty. It is adequate for a straightforward read tool but lacks explicit completeness about response contents or any usage caveats.

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 compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'symbols' accepts one or multiple comma-separated tickers, and 'short' changes the response to only price/volume. This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's basic type information. Slight deduction because it doesn't specify the exact format for symbols (e.g., case sensitivity) or the full response structure.

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's function: 'Current quote for one or more symbols,' with a specific verb (quote) and resource (symbols). It distinguishes from siblings like fmp_historical_prices and fmp_screener by focusing on current data. The optional 'short' parameter nuance is also explained, adding specificity.

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 for fetching real-time quotes but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when historical prices are needed, use fmp_historical_prices). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is limited to implied context.

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