Live quote

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying that a null quote is returned when no quote arrives within the timeout (e.g., market closed), which is important for handling non-responsive markets.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states exactly what is returned and the field list, the second handles the edge case. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned quote fields and the null-quote behavior. Combined with the schema's contractId guidance and timeoutMs bounds, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its result in a realistic failure case.

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 only 50%; contractId is well documented in the schema, but timeoutMs is only given type/default/min/max. The description indirectly clarifies timeoutMs by mentioning 'within the timeout', but it does not explicitly state that timeoutMs is the maximum wait time in milliseconds, leaving the agent to infer that from context.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Latest real-time quote ... from the market hub') and enumerates the returned fields (lastPrice, bestBid, bestAsk, session open/high/low, volume), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_bars or get_contract. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 makes the intended use case clear — fetching the latest real-time quote — and implies this is the right tool for that purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as get_bars for historical data or get_contract for contract details, nor state when not to use it.

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