get_quote

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: currency (PKR), market-hours window with timezone, and staleness semantics outside hours ('reflects the last session'). It omits auth requirements, invalid-symbol error behavior, and rate limits, but the freshness/currency disclosure is genuinely valuable context.

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 core purpose, then return fields, then timing behavior, then the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place, though the field enumeration is dense; it is justified since no output schema exists.

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 no annotations, the description fills both gaps by enumerating returned fields and explaining freshness behavior. What remains missing (parameter format, error handling) is minor for a single-argument read 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 single symbol parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It narrows valid values by domain ('PSX equity or ETF,' implicitly excluding indices) but gives no format hint, ticker examples, or case sensitivity. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Get the latest quote') and narrows the asset scope to 'a PSX equity or ETF,' then explicitly names get_indices as the tool for the adjacent case. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_intraday or get_market_snapshot from the description alone.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('For an index use get_indices') and the timing condition that determines freshness (live in market hours, last session otherwise). It does not address the more likely confusion with get_intraday or get_eod_history, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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