Cours d'un instrument

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to establish safety. It goes beyond that by disclosing the one-second server-side MCP cache for quotes, which is a real behavioral trait an agent should know when polling. It omits failure behavior for unknown 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?

Two tight sentences: what is returned first, the caching caveat second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields (Bid/Ask/Last/volume/OHLC du jour), so an agent knows the payload shape. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on unknown symbols or multi-connection ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the constraint that symbolId must be exact and supplies a concrete example ('EUR/USD'), reinforcing the 'Symbol.Name' format note in the schema. It says nothing extra about connectionId 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?

States a specific verb (Renvoie) and resource (Bid/Ask/Last/volume + OHLC du jour) for a given instrument, which cleanly separates it from siblings like quantower_get_dom and quantower_get_history. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'pour un instrument donné', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_dom for depth or get_history for past bars. Adequate but leaves routing decisions to inference.

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