get_quotes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the real-time nature of the data and what fields are returned, but does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness guarantees beyond 'real-time'.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field list is somewhat lengthy, but it remains readable and efficiently conveys the tool's scope.

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 simple read-only quote tool with full parameter documentation, rich annotations, and a separate output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it. The main omission is guidance on choosing it over historical or option-chain siblings, which is a usage-guideline gap rather than a fundamental completeness gap.

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 100%, so both the symbols format and include_fundamentals are fully documented by the schema. The description only alludes to optional fundamentals, adding little beyond the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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 states a specific resource (real-time quotes) and enumerates the returned fields, including options greeks and optional fundamentals. It distinguishes itself from historical tools through the 'Real-time' qualifier, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this tool is for current quotes rather than historical data and that get_price_history is the alternative; the description offers no routing or prerequisite information.

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