get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses accepted symbol classes, defines change against the previous daily close, and reveals the fallback to the latest daily bar with a source field when the live endpoint is unreachable. This goes well beyond a generic 'get quote' statement.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with a one-line summary followed by supporting details. Every sentence adds factual constraints—accepted symbols, change basis, and fallback behavior—with no filler or repetition.

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 lightweight single-parameter tool, the description covers accepted symbols, returned metrics, change reference, and fallback behavior. With no output schema, the first sentence's field enumeration helps, but the absence of explicit sibling routing leaves a small completeness gap.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'symbol', with no description, so the description is the only source of semantic detail. It provides concrete accepted forms (AAPL, ^GSPC, DJI, ^IXIC, BTC, ETH), which compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It doesn't specify exhaustive formats or case sensitivity, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Latest quote for a symbol' and lists the included fields (price, day change, OHLC, volume), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_history and market_status by the 'latest quote' framing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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: to fetch a current quote with OHLC and volume. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer get_history or market_status instead, so the usage boundary is implied rather than stated.

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