multi_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PRO requirement and batch nature, but does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, maximum number of symbols, or error handling for invalid symbols.

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 extremely short with no redundant words; the [PRO] tag and batch scope are useful. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which limits its informational value without being verbose.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain more about return values and usage context. It fails to mention what the response looks like, maximum batch size, or when to prefer multi_quote over get_quote, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 schema already documents 'symbols' as comma-separated with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not enhance clarity.

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 'Batch quotes for portfolio' clearly identifies the resource (quotes) and scope (batch/portfolio), and the 'Batch' keyword distinguishes it from sibling get_quote. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'Get' or 'Fetch', but the meaning is 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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over get_quote or other siblings. The description implies a portfolio batch scenario but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives.

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