quote_batch

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no session/auth required, a hard 100-symbol ceiling, and the guarantee that 'no chart is retargeted' (no side effect on chart state). 'Missing symbols remain explicit' usefully discloses partial-result behavior rather than silently dropping unknown symbols. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; it simply doesn't explain why idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the capability and cap front-loaded and no filler. 'Missing symbols remain explicit' is slightly compressed jargon that costs a moment of parsing, keeping it just under a top score.

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 quote tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what a quote contains (price, change, volume, timestamp) or the result ordering/pairing with the input list. Auth-free operation, the size cap and missing-symbol handling are covered, so the core call is safe, but the return shape remains an inference.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. It contributes the 100-item cap and the 'exchange-qualified' format requirement, but the schema's regex pattern, maxLength and uniqueItems constraints are not explained, and the description restates rather than clarifies the symbol format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... symbols from the public TradingView scanner') plus a scope ceiling ('up to 100'), which separates it from the single-symbol quote_get and from screener_scan. It never names a sibling explicitly, relying on the 'batch of up to 100' framing to imply the distinction.

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?

'with zero session credentials' implies the context in which this is the right choice (no authenticated session available), and 'no chart is retargeted' implies it is safe to call alongside chart tools. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. quote_get for a single symbol, data_get_last_bar for chart-bound reads).

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