get_viop_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it returns multiple data fields (price, change, bid/ask, volume) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of the response. For a read-only market data tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose (returning VİOP contract data). It efficiently includes a filter example without excess verbosity. Slightly compact but could benefit from clearer separation of usage context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally cover more about return values and usage scenarios. It states what data fields are returned but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or error behavior. It's adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and search) thoroughly. The description adds an example contract code ('F_X10XB1026' or 'X10') which helps illustrate the search parameter's expected format, adding marginal value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the limit parameter or default behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 it returns price, change, bid/ask and volume information for VİOP (futures & options) contracts. This is a specific resource and verb combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_history or get_bist_price. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other price-fetching tools in the sibling list, hence not a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bist_price or get_stock_history. The description mentions a filter example but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or when to leave it blank for all contracts. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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