get_quotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 500-instrument limit, included data fields (quantity, OHLC, Open Interest, bid/ask depth), and handling of missing data. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. All additional behavioral details are appropriately placed in the schema parameter description rather than cluttering the main description, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what data is returned and instrument limits. However, it doesn't explain the return structure, error conditions, or how to interpret the 'complete market data snapshot,' leaving the agent to infer these from the parameter description alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'instruments' thoroughly documented in the schema itself (including format examples, limits, and response behavior). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('Get market data quotes') and resource ('for a list of instruments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ltp' or 'get_ohlc' which also retrieve market data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ltp' (likely for last traded price) or 'get_ohlc' (for open-high-low-close data). The description mentions it returns 'complete market data snapshot' but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred tool for comprehensive quotes versus more specialized siblings.

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