get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds the market scope and the fact that order book data is part of the quote, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness beyond the word 'current'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and market scope first and the field list second. No boilerplate, no repetition, nothing that could be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only real gap is routing guidance against sibling tools like get_ohlcv; market scope and coverage are otherwise sufficient for a two-parameter read tool.

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 both parameters (including the code format and the extra KIS call for the 10-level order book) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'order book' lightly reinforces include_orderbook but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

It names a specific resource (a stock quote) and enumerates the exact contents returned — current price, day range, volume, valuation ratios, order book — plus the market scope (KIS, KRX). That is enough to separate it from get_ohlcv and get_financials by content, though it never names a sibling or states an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the fields listed (current price, day range) signal a live snapshot rather than historical series, which is the natural contrast with get_ohlcv. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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