watchlist_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Return' and 'live', but does not mention potential issues like empty watchlists, invalid account, network delays, or whether any state changes occur. It lacks details on error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent with limited understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant information, and it earns its place by being immediately scannable. This is an ideal length and structure.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple and has an output schema (which covers return values), the description is too sparse for a no-annotation, zero-schema-coverage case. The required 'account' parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on what constitutes a valid watchlist reference. The description leaves critical input semantics uncovered, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 description only references 'watchlist' as a concept, not explaining the 'watchlist' parameter specifically or the 'account' parameter at all. The agent is left to infer what values to pass (e.g., account name vs. ID, watchlist ID vs. name). Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning live quotes for all symbols in a specified watchlist. This distinguishes it from siblings like watchlist_get (which returns watchlist contents) and bulk_quotes (which quotes arbitrary symbols). The verb 'Return' and resource 'live quotes for every symbol saved in a watchlist' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use when you need quotes for all symbols in a watchlist, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using market_latest_quote for a single symbol or bulk_quotes for a custom symbol list. This falls just short of full explicit guidance.

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