get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, not whether it is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or response behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs all necessary usage details (accepted formats, comma separation) without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not describe the return format or expected data structure. For a quote tool, the agent may need to know whether it returns a price object, a string, or errors. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail on what the caller should expect would improve completeness, but the core calling instructions are adequate.

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%, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explicitly mentions the 'sh' prefix format and clarifies that HK codes like '00700' and US codes like 'AAPL' are accepted. This enhances the agent's understanding beyond the schema's single example, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 it gets real-time stock quotes for three markets, lists accepted code formats, and implies a distinction from siblings (search_stock, get_kline) by focusing on real-time quote retrieval. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'real-time stock quote' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer this tool is for quotes, not searching or historical data. The context of real-time quotes differentiates it from siblings without needing explicit exclusion statements.

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