finance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose quote freshness (real-time vs delayed), market-hours behavior, rate limits, or failure modes for invalid tickers — all material for a financial quote 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?

One efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical scope qualifier tacked on. No filler, though the enum repetition is marginally redundant with the schema.

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 three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent without quote-freshness or output-shape expectations, which matters for financial data.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the asset_type enum values (equity, fund, crypto, index) and the ticker concept but adds no meaning beyond the schema and completely omits the 'market' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('financial quotes') plus the accepted asset categories, so an agent can tell it apart from unrelated siblings like weather or web-search. It is clear but does not name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives. It never says when a quote lookup is appropriate versus general web search for financial data, which a generic name like 'finance' invites confusion about.

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