Current price quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (bid, ask, mid, etc.) and explicitly stating 'Read-only; never creates an order,' reinforcing safety. It also mentions the delayed-price flag, adding context about data currency without contradicting annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Current informational quote') and then lists the fields. It's efficient with no filler, though slightly long; still, every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data points, giving an agent a clear expectation of the response. It doesn't cover error handling or edge cases, but that's not essential for this straightforward quote tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters (uic and assetType) fully described including examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 provides a current informational quote with specific fields (bid, ask, mid, etc.), distinguishing it from account/history siblings like get_positions or get_orders. The explicit 'never creates an order' further clarifies its non-action purpose.

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 obtaining current price data, and the context makes it clear this is for quotes versus historical data (get_chart_data) or instrument details (get_instrument_details). It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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