get_quote

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful operational context: provider fallback logic, Toss-key dependency, session-timing comparison for 'both', per-symbol include behavior, and KIS Japanese-stock support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves into provider/include details with little wasted text. It is dense but appropriate for a six-parameter tool, though the long semicolon-and-parenthetical sentence could be easier to scan.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But with 6 parameters, only 1 required, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits meanings for market and detail_level and only partially explains exchange, leaving clear gaps for an agent configuring the call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains symbols (up to 10, with examples), provider modes, include values, and partially exchange via 'KIS covers Japanese stocks (exchange TKSE)'; however, it does not explain market or detail_level and only partially covers exchange.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Current stock quotes for up to 10 symbols' with example symbols. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not contrast itself with related siblings such as get_stock_snapshot or get_candles, so an agent may still need to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the first sentence and by the provider-selection details, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_stock_snapshot or get_candles. The provider guidance helps configure the call, not choose the tool.

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