list_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get quotes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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 concise with a single sentence, 'Get quotes for a ticker symbol.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but it scores high on this dimension alone.

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 the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, output, or differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 10 parameters. It only mentions 'ticker symbol', which relates to the 'ticker' parameter, but ignores the other 9 parameters (e.g., limit, order, timestamp filters). This leaves most parameters undocumented and adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Get quotes for a ticker symbol' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('quotes'), but it's vague about what 'quotes' means in this context (e.g., stock quotes, forex quotes, or something else) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_last_quote' or 'list_futures_quotes'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_last_quote' and 'list_futures_quotes', it doesn't specify if this is for historical quotes, real-time data, or a particular asset class, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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