get_etf_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every feed field, computes the NAV premium/discount, returns candidates for ambiguous matches, and resolves base_date backwards to a day with data. These are substantial behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, a list of return fields, a disambiguation note, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence earns its place without 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?

Given that an output schema exists to define return structure, the description covers the key contextual behaviors: ambiguous-name handling, date resolution, and computed metrics. It is complete for a single-quote tool, leaving no major gaps.

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 description compensates with an 'Args' section that provides concrete examples for code_or_name ('069500', 'KR7069500007', 'KODEX 200') and explains base_date's backward resolution. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare field titles.

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 opens with 'Full one-day detail for a single ETF, looked up by code, ISIN or name.' This clearly states the tool's specific verb ('get'), resource ('ETF quote'), and scope (single ETF, one-day detail), distinguishing it from siblings like get_etf_history and search_etf.

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 implies when to use the tool (single-day snapshot, disambiguation via candidates) and gives concrete examples, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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