Get Quotes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: real-time nature, 100-instrument limit, bond prices quoted as % of face value, and automatic classCode resolution via find_instrument. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention pagination or outputPath behavior.

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 consists of 3 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key data points. It avoids unnecessary words and jargon. Minor improvement possible by mentioning outputPath, but it remains efficient.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the returned data, bond pricing nuance, and a cross-reference to get_portfolio. However, it does not explain the optional outputPath and outputFormat parameters, which are documented in the schema but not integrated into the description's narrative. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it mentions classCode auto-resolution but does not elaborate on outputPath or outputFormat. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 real-time quotes for up to 100 instruments, listing specific data points (bid/offer, last price, day open/close/high/low, change). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that get_portfolio already carries currentPrice for user positions, and mentions classCode resolution via find_instrument, clarifying its relationship to that sibling.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for real-time quotes). It explicitly tells users not to use it for their own portfolio's current price, directing them to get_portfolio instead. While it does not exhaustively list alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for the common case.

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