sc_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it gets a quote for a security, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, what happens with invalid ISINs, or any rate limits. The 'Current' hint is useful but insufficient for safety-critical decisions.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Could be slightly improved by linking the optional parameters.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. An output schema exists but is not shown. The description is too minimal for a tool that fetches financial data; it lacks info on data refresh frequency, required permissions, or how optional params affect the quote.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'isin' as the key parameter (by ISIN), but does not explain 'include_ytd' (likely year-to-date performance) or 'portfolio_id' (scoping context?). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('quote'), and specifies the input identifier type ('by ISIN'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sc_holdings (holding positions) or sc_transactions (trade history).

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 implies the tool is for fetching current price data, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives from the sibling list. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., valid ISIN) or scenarios (e.g., market hours).

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