Batch Stock Quotes

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the batch-size constraint and efficiency rationale, but it does not disclose behavior on invalid symbols, partial batch failures, or the exact shape of the returned quotes. That is acceptable but not rich enough to exceed a baseline 3.

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 sentences with no filler: the action and resource are front-loaded, the 20-symbol cap is stated immediately, and the relationship to get_stock_quote is given as a useful closing rationale. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter, read-only batch tool, the description plus rich schema is mostly complete: the agent knows what to pass, the maximum batch size, and when to prefer it. The only gap is the absence of any description of the return format, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical omission.

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%: the 'symbols' parameter already documents the array, max 20, example format, and splitting over 20. The tool-level description repeats the max-20 constraint but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get current price quotes for multiple stocks at once.' It is clearly distinct from the single-symbol sibling get_stock_quote by explicitly positioning itself as the batch version, so an agent can confidently select it for multi-symbol requests.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for multiple stocks, cap requests at 20 symbols, and it is 'more efficient than calling get_stock_quote repeatedly.' It names the relevant alternative but does not explicitly state the exclusion case (e.g., 'for a single quote, use get_stock_quote'), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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