get_odd_lot_trading_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. It only states what the tool does ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain inputs or return values. However, it lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for guiding an agent effectively in a complex server with many tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it could have clarified if any implicit parameters (e.g., date defaults) exist. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.

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 'Get odd-lot trading quotes in the centralized market' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('odd-lot trading quotes'), but it's vague about scope (e.g., time range, specific market) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_daily_market_trading_info' or 'get_stock_daily_trading' that might overlap. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to trading data (e.g., 'get_block_trades_daily', 'get_after_hours_trading'), the description doesn't specify context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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