Live Quote (alias)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the single-symbol scope and alias relationship, but discloses nothing about return format, delays, or error behavior. With annotations lowering the bar, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences plus a concrete example contain no filler. The alias relationship is front-loaded, and 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 simple read-only alias with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation. It does not mention return format, and there is no output schema, but the tool's trivial nature and clear single-symbol scope minimize the gap.

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 symbol, ticker, and identifier. The description adds only an example ('{"symbol":"RELIANCE"}') without explaining semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Alias for get_stock_quote', which names the canonical sibling and positions this tool as a direct alias. 'Latest price for one symbol' states the resource and scope clearly, distinguishing it from multi-symbol tools like get_batch_quotes.

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 explicitly says 'one symbol', so an agent knows this is for single-symbol latest-price lookups. It names get_stock_quote as the canonical version, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_batch_quotes for multiple symbols.

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