get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state what output to expect (current price and day range), but it does not discuss data reliability, delay, error handling, or whether the price is real-time or delayed. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves some behavioral details uncovered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a clearly separated 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the input format and the main expected output. It could be more complete by describing the return structure or noting data source, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool with confidence.

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 provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the argument in plain language and giving concrete examples like 'AAPL' or 'MSFT.' This is exactly the kind of parameter semantics that helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Get the current price and day range for a stock symbol.' This is specific and distinct from the siblings (fundamentals, candles, technical indicators), so an agent can confidently select this tool for quote-like data.

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 usage context is clearly implied: use when you need the current price and day range for a stock. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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