quotes_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool repeatedly polls and returns snapshots, which covers the core behavior. However, it omits details such as rate limits, how failures are handled, whether the operation is purely read-only, or any caveats about 'live' data availability.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the main action and result. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the tool is conceptually simple. Still, with no annotations and no explanation of the required symbols format or how this compares to sibling quote tools, the description is not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.

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, but it only vaguely references 'N times' and 'interval' without explicitly tying them to snapshots and interval_sec. The required 'symbols' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving its expected format open to guessing.

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 states the verb 'Poll', the resource ('live quotes'), and the exact mechanism (N times at an interval, returning a list of snapshots). This clearly distinguishes it from one-shot quote tools like market_snapshot or bulk_quotes by framing it as a simple polling stream.

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 'for a simple stream without WebSocket' implies a use case and points toward polling rather than a persistent connection. However, it does not name any sibling quote tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance among the many available quote-related siblings.

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