get_fund_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds no further behavioral context beyond retrieving a quote. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with a main line, a strategy tag, an example, and an Args list. It is well-structured and each part adds value. Slightly verbose due to the strategy tag, but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the optional parameters and usage strategy well. For a simple read tool with two optional parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'symbols: Fund codes (optional; empty = all ETFs)' and 'fund_type: etf/open (default etf)'. This clarifies allowed values and behavior, significantly enhancing the schema.

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 'Get fund/ETF quote', specifying it retrieves quotes for funds or ETFs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quote or get_futures_quote by focusing on fund/ETF context. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify if it returns a single quote or a list, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 includes a <strategy> tag with explicit guidance: 'Leave symbols empty for ETF overview; specify for specific funds.' It also provides an example. This gives clear context on when to use the tool but lacks explicit mention of when not to use alternatives.

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