get_etf_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (price, change, volume, key stats) and uses 'current' to imply real-time data, but it does not mention data delay, market hours, or limitations. This is adequate for a simple read-only quote tool but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and return fields, and the examples make the input concrete.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return values and provides clear examples. It is slightly vague about what 'key stats' includes, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'any ETF ticker' and additional examples (VOO, VUG), but these are marginal enhancements over the schema's existing 'ETF ticker symbol (e.g. QQQM)'.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current price, change, volume, and key stats for any ETF ticker'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_etf_summary or get_etf_performance, though the focus on current quote data provides some distinction.

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 such as get_etf_summary, get_etf_performance, or compare_etfs. The description implies it is for current quotes, but it does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

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