schwab_quote

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness constraints.

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 extremely concise with two focused sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it could be more complete by hinting at related tools or noting the output schema existence.

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 description adds meaningful context to the sole parameter by specifying it as a stock ticker symbol and providing examples ('AAPL', 'TSLA'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and aids correct parameter value selection.

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 verb (Get), resource (current quote), and source (Schwab), and implies it's for a single stock symbol. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'schwab_quotes' (plural) or 'stock_quote_by_id', which could cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'schwab_quotes' for multiple quotes, 'price_history' for historical data). An agent is left unaware of the decision criteria.

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