get_market_quote

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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the mode behavior and input requirements but does not disclose additional details like rate limits, error handling, or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences long, directly states the tool's purpose, and lists the modes and required inputs with no filler words. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 tool with three required parameters, all explicitly described in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the modes, and the input requirements. However, it does not describe the return values or any special behavior (e.g., pagination, sort order), which would be helpful given no output schema. It remains adequate for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description merely restates 'Pass exchange and token list' without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does not compensate with extra details such as token format or value restrictions not already present.

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 market quote data' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the available modes (FULL, OHLC, LTP). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on quotes, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_ltp, which overlaps with the LTP mode.

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 by describing modes and required inputs ('Pass exchange and token list'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ltp. The context signals show a sibling get_ltp, and no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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