get_last_quote

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies it fetches real-time or recent data but doesn't specify latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'most recent' means (e.g., seconds, minutes). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides little extra value.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a simple fetch operation), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on asset type, differentiation from siblings, and parameter details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'ticker symbol' for the 'ticker' parameter, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'params' parameter at all—its purpose, format, or when to use it. With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description compensates inadequately, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 the most recent quote for a ticker symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('quote'), and scope ('most recent'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_trade' or 'get_last_forex_quote', which have similar naming patterns but target different asset classes.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_last_trade', 'get_last_forex_quote', 'list_quotes'), there's no indication of whether this is for stocks, forex, or other assets, or how it differs in scope or output from similar tools. This leaves the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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