etf_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get an ETF quote' and adds no information about data freshness (real-time vs delayed), authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or any side effects. With zero annotation support, this is a critical gap for a tool that will be invoked by an agent.

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 zero filler. It states the action and resource directly and wastes no words. For a tool with a single parameter, this is appropriately terse.

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 tool's simplicity (one param) and the lack of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what 'quote' contains (e.g., price, volume, change) or provide context for how it differs from other quote tools. It does neither. The agent has no idea what data will be returned or how to interpret the result, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ticker' with a clear example ('ETF ticker (e.g., SPY)'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description does not enhance it.

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 conveys a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ETF quote'), making the core purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from other asset-class quote tools (e.g., stocks_quote, crypto_quote) by naming 'ETF', but it does not explicitly differentiate from etf_prices or etf_fund, which are close siblings. Hence a 4, not a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many siblings. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., when to use etf_quote vs etf_prices vs etf_fund). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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