get_option_latest_quote

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and output content but doesn't delve into nuances like latency, indicative feed modifications, or formatting specifics. The schema's feed description covers some of this, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and key output attributes. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording.

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 (2 parameters, output schema provided), the description offers a clear overview. It doesn't explicitly mention multi-symbol support or the feed parameter, but those are fully covered in the schema. The combination of the description and structured data is sufficient for a basic read tool, though a bit more context about output format could be added.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither elevates nor reduces the score.

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 uses the specific verb phrase 'Retrieves and formats' and clearly identifies the resource as 'latest quote for one or more option contracts.' It also lists concrete content (bid/ask prices, sizes, exchange information), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_option_latest_trade or get_stock_latest_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the feed selection trade-offs or suggest scenarios where this tool is preferred. Although the schema's feed description gives some context, the main description lacks any usage direction.

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