get_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTML source and the non-executable nature, but does not elaborate on potential delays, error handling, or what constitutes an 'official-session quote.' The single-sentence description offers some transparency but leaves gaps that annotations might otherwise cover.

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 that efficiently states the purpose and a critical limitation. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the source, and its intended use. It could mention whether the quote is delayed or any specific freshness caveats, but the statement 'not an executable price feed' already implies a limitation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so this is adequately complete.

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 schema provides full coverage (100%) with a description for the ticker parameter, including examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the latest official-session quote'), the target (one BRVM ticker), and the source (brvm.org HTML). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ohlcv (which likely provides OHLCV data) and get_issuer (issuer info).

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 provides explicit context: it is for 'Research/alerts only' and explicitly states it is 'not an executable price feed,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when it isn't. However, it does not name alternative tools for other use cases, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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