Get quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuinely non-structured context: the data source is Mofid only, prices are denominated in Rial, and 'last' means last trade while 'close' is the weighted closing price the exchange uses for change. The main remaining gap is that it doesn't say whether symbols with no data are omitted or returned as null.

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?

Well front-loaded: the payload and batch size lead, then source, then routing advice, then field semantics. Minor redundancy remains, since 'Index and fund ids work too' repeats the earlier 'for fund and index ids' clause and could be merged.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields and the currency. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; the only unaddressed behaviour is handling of invalid or data-less symbols within a batch.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the array, its 1-30 bounds and ISIN-style ids with equity and index examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by confirming fund and index ids are accepted and that results are priced in Rial, but it doesn't clarify id formatting edge cases or how mixed equity/index batches are ordered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return live price rows') plus the exact payload fields (last, close, change, volume, limits, bid/ask, returns) and the batch range of 1 to 30 symbols. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming br_search (for ids) and br_stock (single symbol in depth). An agent can tell br_quotes apart from br_stock without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage sequence ('use it after br_search to price several symbols at once') and an explicit alternative with its selection condition ('br_stock gives one symbol in depth'). It also states a source constraint ('Source: Mofid only') and calls out that fund and index ids are valid inputs, which are the main cases where an agent might wrongly reach for a different tool.

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