forex_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only states the action 'Get a forex pair quote' without revealing any behavioral traits—no mention of data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name and fails to inform the agent of any constraints or behaviors.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally minimal and front-loaded. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no additional information, so the sentence does not 'earn its place'. While there is no fluff, the lack of substantive content makes the conciseness less valuable.

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 is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the quote returns, how it differs from related tools like forex_prices, or any usage context. While the single parameter is well-documented in the schema, significant gaps remain regarding tool selection and expected behavior, making the definition incomplete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter `ticker`, including an example ('EURUSD'). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter; it merely restates the overall purpose. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, the description offers no extra value, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get' a 'forex pair quote'. It is clear that this tool retrieves a quote for a single forex pair, and it correctly distinguishes the asset class from other quote tools like stocks_quote or crypto_quote. However, it does not specify what constitutes a quote (e.g., bid/ask, last price), and it does not differentiate itself from forex_prices beyond the word 'quote'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forex_prices, forex_tickers, or other quote tools. The description doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar tools.

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