quote_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It explicitly discloses that providing a non-current symbol causes a temporary chart switch, a ~1-2s delay, and serialization of parallel calls—non-obvious side effects that materially affect invocation and concurrency expectations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and fields, the second fronts the critical side-effect and performance caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable warning appears early.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is complete: it covers what is returned, how the parameter behaves, the side-effecting case, and the performance cost. An agent can safely decide whether to call it and what to expect without further investigation.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameter meaning, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral consequence of a non-blank symbol and the restore guarantee, going slightly beyond the schema's 'chart switch + restore' note with timing and serialization details.

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 action ('Get real-time quote data') and concrete resource (a symbol), and enumerates the returned fields (price, OHLC, volume). The term 'real-time' and 'quote' distinguish it from historical data tools like data_get_ohlcv and metadata tools like symbol_inf o, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance on the symbol parameter: blank means current chart symbol, while a non-blank different symbol triggers a switch-and-restore with a ~1-2s cost. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternative quote, OHLCV, or symbol-information tools, so the cross-tool routing is left implied.

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