get_quote

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

Adds real context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: delayed data of ~15-20 minutes, the GBp-is-pence trap that would otherwise cause a 100x valuation error, and the fact that failures come back as per-ticker error entries rather than a thrown error. Rate limits and batching behavior are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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 field list and caveats before the Args/Returns sections, which is the right order. The field list is repeated in the Returns block ('price, previous close, change %, currency and exchange'), a minor redundancy, but every other sentence earns its place.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it documents return fields, the as_of timestamp, error entries, and the delay caveat. What it lacks is guidance on batch size limits or what happens when a ticker is malformed versus delisted.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does — it names the param, identifies the expected format (Yahoo symbols) and gives three concrete examples including exchange suffixes like IWDA.AS and VWRL.L. It does not state whether multiple tickers are batched in one call or how listing-vs-ticker notation edge cases resolve.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus an enumeration of the returned fields (price, previous close, day change, currency, exchange), which pins down exactly what kind of quote this is. The word 'Latest' implicitly separates it from get_price_history, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must reason that 'Latest price' means use this instead of get_price_history or get_symbol_info. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, though the scope is narrow enough that misuse is unlikely.

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