indices_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get an index quote' without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, data freshness, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though somewhat sparse. The structure is efficient given the tool's simplicity, but it does not leverage the space to add meaningful context beyond the core purpose.

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 simple quote tool, the description is minimally complete but lacks clarification on what 'quote' entails (e.g., price, volume, change). There is no output schema to compensate, and the description does not differentiate from 'indices_prices' or other quote tools. It is adequate for a basic call but leaves ambiguity about the response shape and use cases.

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 'ticker' is documented with descriptive examples ('AXJO', 'AEX'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get an index quote' specifies the action (get) and the resource (index quote). It is clear about the tool's basic purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indices_prices' or 'stock_quote'. The resource is specific enough that an agent can infer it returns a current quote for an index ticker.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'indices_prices' or other quote tools. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context for when this is the preferred choice. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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