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 transparency burden. It does disclose that 'Values may be delayed by exchange entitlement,' which is a useful behavioral warning. However, it doesn't describe the return format, handling of invalid symbols, or any authentication requirements, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and add a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what data a 'quote' contains, how the 'fields' parameter modifies the response, or how this tool differs from closely related siblings like get_price_history. This leaves important gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. While 'symbols' is self-explanatory from the name, 'fields' is ambiguous — there's no indication of what fields are available or how they affect the response. The description adds no value over the bare parameter names.

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 tool's function: 'Get Schwab quotes for US equity symbols.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (Schwab quotes), and specifies the scope (US equity symbols). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_history and get_fundamentals, which handle related but different data.

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 that get_price_history should be used for historical data or get_fundamentals for fundamental data. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no explicit when/when-not/alternatives are given.

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