multi_quote

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get quotes' aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, order of results), but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and format effectively.

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 the presence of an output schema and the simple single parameter, the description is largely complete. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning that it is more efficient than calling 'stock_quote' multiple times.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter description ('Comma-separated ticker symbols'). No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: to get quotes for multiple stocks at once, with a specific format of comma-separated symbols. It differentiates well from sibling tools like 'stock_quote' which likely handles single stocks.

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 for multiple stocks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stock_quote' for a single stock or other tools. No explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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