market_latest_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns latest bid, ask, and last indication) but does not mention caveats like data delay, market coverage, or whether the quote is indicative. It is minimal but not contradictory.

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?

One short sentence with zero fluff, making it very concise. However, it omits a verb and is slightly telegraphic, but for a simple tool this is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has an output schema and one obvious parameter, but the description lacks any usage context relative to the many market-related siblings. It does not explain when this tool is preferable over alternatives, nor does it clarify whether the symbol is a ticker or something else. The brevity leaves it borderline inadequate.

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%, and the tool description does not mention the 'symbol' parameter at all. It fails to explain how to format the symbol or that it is required, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 identifies the resource as a latest quote and lists the specific fields returned (bid, ask, last indication), which distinguishes it from historical tools like market_bars. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Gets' or 'Returns', so it's not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_snapshot, tick, or bulk_quotes. The name implies real-time quotes but the description does not state use cases or exclusions.

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