get_locate_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely valuable environment constraint (unavailable in paper trading) and the input shape, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how pricing is expressed. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the paper-trading caveat placed last where it belongs. No filler, though the second sentence largely restates the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input shape, and one environment caveat. It is still missing the disambiguation from get_locate/get_locates that an agent would need in a 70+ tool namespace, which is the main completeness gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as a comma-separated list with a 100-symbol cap. The description repeats that format without adding new meaning such as symbol formatting rules or error behavior for invalid/duplicate symbols, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns locate availability and pricing for one or more symbols.' An agent knows it is a read of locate pricing data, but the description never distinguishes it from the closely named siblings get_locate and get_locates, leaving the boundary between the three to inference.

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?

Implied usage is clear (query locates for a set of symbols) and it usefully warns 'Not available in paper trading,' which is a real when-to-use constraint. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_locate/get_locates, nor states any prerequisite such as needing an account with locate access.

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