get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns real-time data and lists returned fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data update frequency. Adding 'read-only' or 'no side effects' would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the data returned. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the symbol format. The output schema likely handles return value documentation.

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 only parameter 'symbol' has a clear description in the input schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the example format but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 gets real-time quote, price details, and official logo URL for a TradingView symbol. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('quote, price details, logo URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bonds or get_history.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fetch current market price and details) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies usage boundaries.

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