Quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: bad symbols return an error entry without failing the whole batch, and Yahoo data is delayed for BIST. This is valuable but does not cover broader failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the payload and output fields, the second covers error isolation, and the third notes the source and BIST delay. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential remaining context: batch error behavior and source latency. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the symbol parameter is already well documented with accepted formats like THYAO, XU100, USDTRY, and GOLD. The tool description only reconfirms that data is per symbol and adds no new parameter-level semantics, making the baseline 3 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 identifies a read-only quote retrieval action with a specific resource (latest price data per symbol) and enumerates the exact fields returned. The 'per symbol' batch framing and field list distinguish it from time-series or market-overview siblings like get_price_history and get_market_overview.

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 usage for current snapshot quotes and lists supported symbol categories, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Agents must infer that historical price data belongs to get_price_history.

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