Get Stock Quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: automatic start computation from days/hours/minutes, inclusive time ranges, feed-specific constraints (including the 403 error warning), limit bounds, sort behavior, and asof point-in-time symbol mapping. This is rich and helpful.

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 front-loaded with a precise purpose statement, followed by a concise explanation of the default time behavior, then a well-structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the 11 parameters it documents.

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 complexity (11 params, output schema present), the description is complete: it covers all parameters, default behaviors, error-prone feed selections, and point-in-time semantics. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so no further return detail is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: symbols format, start/end semantics, lookback defaults, limit range, feed options, currency, sort order, and asof. This far exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool retrieves historical bid/ask quotes (level 1) for one or more stocks, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_bars, get_stock_trades, and get_stock_latest_quote by specifying quote data and historical scope.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (historical level 1 quotes) and includes important usage guidance, such as automatic lookback when start is omitted and the requirement for paper/free accounts to set feed='iex' to avoid 403 errors. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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