get_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose real-time data content and option-specific fields, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens for invalid instruments.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds valuable option-specific detail. 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the operation, scope, and key return fields. A minor gap is not mentioning sibling tools or explicitly stating that order book and chart data are out of scope, but this does not seriously hinder an agent.

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 coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'instrument_name' has a clear description with examples. The main description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time quote data for an instrument.' It further distinguishes itself by enumerating option-specific fields like greeks, IV, mark price, bid/ask, open interest, and volume, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_order_book or get_index_price.

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 intended use is implied: use this for a single instrument's real-time quote, especially for options data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling should be used instead (e.g., get_order_book for depth, get_tradingview_chart_data for historical data), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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