quote_get

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/openWorld/idempotent=false, the description adds genuine context: the symbol path is 'credential-free' (no auth/session needed), neither path mutates charts, and the no-symbol path sources 'latest loaded candle' and labels its provenance. It stops short of saying the value is a point-in-time snapshot (explaining idempotent=false) or noting staleness/rate limits for the open-world lookup.

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 parallel sentences, each mapping one branch of behavior, with the primary (symbol) mode front-loaded. No filler or restated title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description at least flags that the source is labeled explicitly in the result. For a cheap read with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient; the missing piece is what a quote response actually contains and how fresh it is for the open-world scanner path.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the exchange-qualified symbol pattern. The description usefully ties symbol-presence to behavioral mode, but says nothing about target_id or expected_layout_id, which read oddly for a read-only tool and are left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource (read a TradingView public scanner quote) and explicitly defines two distinct modes keyed on whether a symbol is supplied. An agent can tell exactly what it will get in each case without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the condition that selects each mode ('with a symbol' vs 'without a symbol'), which is real routing guidance. It does not mention siblings such as quote_batch (multi-symbol) or data_get_last_bar (the overlapping chart-candle path), so an agent has no signal on when to prefer those alternatives.

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