get_option_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavior: the tool contacts Yahoo directly, operates on-demand, and avoids DB sync. It also discloses the scope of returned data. It does not cover potential rate limits or error behavior, but the most important behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, source, and key differentiator ('directly from Yahoo, on-demand, no DB sync needed'). The colon-separated details are compact and information-dense, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of compensating by listing exactly what data will be returned: underlying quote, available expirations/strikes, and per-contract metrics. Combined with the fully self-describing input schema, this gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. Minor gaps like pagination behavior are not critical for a query tool of this scope.

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 all five parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter-level meaning beyond noting that expirations/strikes are 'available' and that per-contract fields are returned. This aligns with the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch live options quotes') and clearly identifies the resource (options quotes for a stock from Yahoo). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'on-demand, no DB sync needed' and enumerating included data (underlying quote, expirations/strikes, per-contract bid/ask/last/volume/open interest/IV). This is unambiguous and distinguishable from nearby tools like get_options.

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 clearly conveys the usage context: it is a live, on-demand fetch directly from Yahoo and does not require a database sync first. This helps an agent understand when to prefer this tool over syncing workflows. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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