get_quote

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does add that the result is a current price expressed as ask/bid in EUR, but it does not disclose behavior such as market-closed handling, default exchange behavior, or whether side affects which price is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. Every word contributes meaning, and the core point is immediately visible.

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 no output schema and three parameters whose descriptions are absent, this terse description leaves too much to inference, especially the role of side and exchange and the distinction from related quote/price tools. The small amount of information about the return values is helpful but not sufficient for a new agent.

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 needed to explain how isin, side, and exchange affect the result, but it does not mention any of them. It only says 'an instrument' and the output fields, adding no semantic value over the bare schema property titles.

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 that the tool returns the current order price for an instrument and names the two key output fields (priceAsk/priceBid in EUR), so an agent can tell this is a quote retrieval tool. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast itself with price-related siblings such as get_price_history or wait_for_price, which keeps it below the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call get_quote instead of get_price_history, get_stock_details, or wait_for_price. The word 'current' implies a point-in-time snapshot, but no exclusions, alternatives, or context are stated.

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