avanza_orderbook_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it is snapshot-oriented and polling-friendly. However, it does not mention whether a live session is required, any rate limits, or what fields are returned, leaving important behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The primary action and the most relevant usage constraint (polling loops) are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical context unresolved: what fields can be requested, the effect of refresh, response format, and session/auth prerequisites. It is enough to attempt a call but not enough to configure parameters correctly or interpret results.

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 for the three parameters. It only hints at 'orderbook_ids' and the 20-50 symbol scale; 'fields' and 'refresh' remain entirely unexplained, and no default or value semantics are clarified. The compensation is minimal.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('quote snapshots for supplied orderbook IDs'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like avanza_realtime_quotes or avanza_live_snapshot, but the wording is specific enough to convey a batch snapshot operation.

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 'supports 5s polling loops for 20-50 symbols' clause gives concrete usage context, implying this is meant for repeated lightweight polling of a moderate set of orderbooks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the polling support is a useful situational signal.

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