get_option_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Public read' (no auth required), specifies the error contract (unknown instrument → SYMBOL_NOT_FOUND), and lists the returned field set. It omits any rate-limit or freshness/caching notes, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and target are front-loaded, followed by a dense but scannable field list and the error/auth notes. No wasted prose.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields plus the error and auth contracts. It is nearly complete; only freshness/rate-limit context is missing.

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 both venue and instrument are already documented in the schema. The description restates the Derive naming convention example, which the schema already includes, adding no new semantic detail; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (quote) and resource (one option instrument), and enumerates the returned data fields. The phrase 'one option instrument' implicitly separates it from the plural get_option_chain and get_option_expiries siblings, and the inline example makes the target unambiguous.

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 word 'one' implies single-instrument lookup versus a chain-wide call, so usage is inferable. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when-not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary with get_option_chain.

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