Live quote (real-time)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the live-access requirement but does not describe the response format, potential delays, error conditions, or rate limits. It provides some value beyond the name but lacks depth for a no-annotation tool.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately informative.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. It is complete enough for selection and basic invocation, though it does not specify the return value format; still, 'quote' implies content, making this acceptable.

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 schema already fully covers the 'ticker' parameter with a clear example ('AAPL') at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter explanation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'Real-time quote for a ticker', which is a specific verb+resource scope. It differentiates from sibling godel_quote by emphasizing 'real-time', making its unique function evident.

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 gives clear context: use for real-time quotes, and it notes the prerequisite 'Requires a provider with live access'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use, falling 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.