get_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that quotes are real-time and specifies the return shape as a dict keyed by requested symbol, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only quote fetcher this is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value; the example is useful and not redundant.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what the argument means, and what the return value looks like. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the only parameter: a list of ticker symbols, with an example (['AAPL', 'MSFT']). This adds all needed meaning beyond the raw array-of-strings 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time quotes for multiple symbols in a single call.' The plural scoping directly distinguishes it from the sibling get_quote without any ambiguity.

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 phrase 'multiple symbols in a single call' implies the appropriate use case, and the sibling name get_quote makes the alternative inferable. However, it never explicitly says when to use get_quotes versus get_quote or notes any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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