get_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (env-var fallback for account_id, and the multi-call pattern for mixed types) but says nothing about rate limits, staleness, or failure behavior for a real-time quote source.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then an Args block. The Args block largely mirrors the schema, but with 0% coverage that repetition is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further, and the description already compensates for the zero schema coverage on all three parameters. Annotations cover safety, leaving no gap an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: symbols is defined as a list of tickers with an example, instrument_type lists all eight valid values plus default, and account_id explains its optionality and fallback source.

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 (Get) and resource (real-time quotes) with scope (one or more symbols) and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_price_history and get_strategy_quote.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: instrument_type defaults to EQUITY, mixed instrument types require calling the tool multiple times, and account_id is optional when the env var is set. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as get_price_history for historical data.

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