get_single_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets a real-time quote but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, latency, rate limits, or whether the quote is delayed. It also does not describe the return format, though an output schema exists. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description could have provided more context about the symbol format or the nature of the real-time quote. It is minimally complete but leaves some gaps.

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 for the undocumented 'symbol' parameter. The description mentions 'stock symbol' in the text, which adds some meaning to the parameter, but it does not provide format examples, validation rules, or clarify that the symbol must be a ticker like 'AAPL'. This is a minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('real-time quote for a stock symbol'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_watchlist_quote, but the 'single' in the name and 'for a stock symbol' provide enough distinction for basic selection.

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 usage for retrieving a real-time quote for a single stock symbol, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_watchlist_quote or get_option_chain, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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