get_quotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the data comes from TradingView's scanner API, no chart interaction occurs, default columns are specified, and the meaning of the 'Recommend.All' rating is explained with its range and interpretation. It does not cover response shape or rate limits, but it discloses the key operational behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and key constraint; the second explains defaults and column extensibility. Every part 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level picture of what is returned and how to customize it. It covers the required symbols format via the schema, default columns, and rating meaning. Minor gaps like exact response structure and limits are either in the schema or not critical for a simple getter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of supported columns ('MACD.macd', 'EMA50', 'price_earnings_ttm'), clarifying the default column set, and explaining the semantics of 'Recommend.All'. This helps agents form valid requests.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current quotes and technical data for specific symbols'), and the method ('TradingView's scanner API'). It also explicitly notes 'no chart interaction', which distinguishes it from chart-related sibling tools like get_chart_context and get_chart_screenshot.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when current quotes and technical data for specified symbols are needed, and explicitly excludes chart interaction. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the stated scope is enough to guide tool selection.

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