get_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each symbol is looked up individually, that the call is safe (non-destructive read), and that symbols not found are listed under 'not_found' rather than failing the whole call. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence captures the core action and scope, the second gives usage guidance, and the third adds behavioral details about error handling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (single parameter, return fields listed, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how errors are handled. No additional information is needed for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of the 'symbols' parameter (Yahoo tickers, ISINs, examples, max 50). The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Get compact current quotes for several Yahoo symbols in one call' – a specific verb (get), resource (quotes), and scope (several symbols). It distinguishes from the singular sibling 'get_quote' by emphasizing multiple tickers. The listed return fields (currency, price, etc.) further clarify purpose.

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 says 'Use this to compare or fetch prices for multiple tickers at once', which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the alternative 'get_quote' for a single symbol, nor does it state any exclusions. The sibling list implies the alternative but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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