IOL MCP Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets a 'current quote,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or delayed data, or what the output format looks like. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section with parameter details. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. However, the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner for direct parsing.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it behaves in edge cases.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: it explains that 'symbol' is a stock symbol with an example ('GGAL'), and 'market' is a market identifier with a default value and example ('bCBA' for Argentina). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles and types. The description compensates somewhat by giving examples and defaults, but doesn't fully document all possible values or constraints (e.g., valid symbol formats or market options).

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 current quote for a stock' specifies the action (get) and resource (quote for a stock). It distinguishes from siblings like get_historical_data or get_portfolio by focusing on current quotes rather than historical data or portfolio information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_operation_details might also involve quotes).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose get_quote over get_historical_data for historical context, or get_portfolio for aggregated holdings. There's no discussion of prerequisites, timing considerations, or explicit exclusions. The only implied usage is for current stock quotes, but no alternatives are named.

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