Get batch market quotes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the batch limit (50) and the 'one call' behavior, but does not disclose response format, error handling, or the meaning of the 'fields' and 'session' parameters. Some behavioral transparency is provided beyond annotations, but it's minimal.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and limit, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool leaves key aspects unexplained. The optional 'fields' and 'session' parameters have no documentation, and the response format is unknown. While the core purpose is clear, the missing parameter semantics and output details make the description incomplete for safe and effective 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?

The description does not elaborate on the 'fields' or 'session' parameters, which are also undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). Only the symbols array has a description inline. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the optional parameters ambiguous. The mention of 'symbols' is generic and adds no specificity 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?

Clearly states it retrieves quotes for up to 50 symbols in a single call, using the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'quotes' and a clear scope. This distinguishes it from singular counterparts like market_get_quote and market_get_price, which presumably handle single symbols.

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 implies batch usage with 'up to 50 symbols in one call,' which strongly signals use for multiple symbols. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that a user needing multiple quotes would choose this tool over singular variants.

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