market_quote

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing behavior for unknown symbols: 'Returns 'no data' for unknown/delisted symbols (Finnhub returns zeros for unknowns — we treat that as no data, never fabricate).' This provides concrete error-handling context beyond annotations.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by essential details, an Args section, and examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary exposition. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but flagged), which likely documents return values. The description provides supplementary information: data fields returned, error handling for unknown symbols, and backing service. For a simple quote tool with good annotations and output schema, the description is complete enough, missing only explicit prerequisites (e.g., API key).

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 already describes both parameters (symbol and response_format) with decent detail. The description adds an 'Args' section that restates types and adds examples mapping natural language to symbols. Since schema coverage is complete, this adds marginal value, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: 'Get a real-time stock quote: price, % change, day high/low, and previous close.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'real-time stock quote', and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_analyze or market_news, which have different purposes.

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 examples and mentions backing by Finnhub, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_analyze or market_scan. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice. The examples imply use for simple quote requests, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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