quote_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' plus a real behavioral constraint: the symbol falls back to the current chart ticker when omitted. It omits rate limits, caching/staleness of the 'real-time' snapshot, and auth requirements, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

Four compact labeled clauses (payload, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. An agent can scan it in one pass.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields, declares the read-only safety profile, and explains the default-symbol behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this single-optional-param tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the blank-equals-current-chart-symbol behavior, so the LIMITATIONS line merely restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (real-time market quote snapshot for a ticker) and enumerates the exact payload fields returned (last price, day OHLC, change %, volume). The phrase 'without loading historical bar series' implicitly separates it from data_get_ohlcv and chart_get_snapshot, which is enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' block tells the agent to call it for quick price checks rather than pulling bar series. However, no alternative tool is named outright (the historical-bar contrast is left implicit), and no when-not condition is given.

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