get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the tool returns a quote with price, 52-week range, key ratios, and dividend summary, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose whether the quote is delayed/real-time, whether currency is included, or any other access/rate considerations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists the returned data categories. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good list of return content. It does not explain the exact shape of the output or whether some fields may be null, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (symbol) with an example (NVDA). The description adds meaning by confirming that the quote is for a stock and implies the symbol is a ticker, which supports the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, the description adds a small but meaningful layer.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('latest quote for a stock') and lists the specific data categories returned (price, 52-week range, key ratios, dividend summary). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_bars, get_financials, get_ratios, and get_dividends by indicating it returns a consolidated snapshot of quote data, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need a broad current quote snapshot rather than historical bars (get_bars), detailed financial statements (get_financials), or standalone ratios/dividends (get_ratios, get_dividends). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_profile or get_analyst_forecast, and it offers no exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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