Cmc Quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'latest' freshness signal and the comma-separated input convention, but says nothing about quote currency, data source, or latency. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example and zero filler. Every element — the resource, the input format, and the sample value — earns its place.

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 output schema means return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety, so the essentials are present. However, for a market-data quote tool the agent still cannot tell the quote currency, the venue, or how many symbols are practical per call — gaps that matter when choosing between this and sibling market tools.

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 0% and the schema only declares symbols as a bare string, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining the comma-separated format and giving a concrete example ("BTC,ETH"). It stops short of stating symbol format constraints (uppercase, exchange prefixes) or behavior for unknown symbols.

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 (latest quotes) and the input form (comma-separated symbols), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cmc_listings or cmc_global_metrics, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over cmc_listings or cmc_global_metrics, no mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or which market/quote currency applies. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the single example.

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